Did the Hittites
have “Mongoloid” Physical Features? And if so, What does it Show?
Shrikant G. Talageri
I have stopped writing and stopped responding to trolls and hecklers. One such troll has been trolling me on my blogspot with critical comments/questions on various points, all of which I have conclusively and irrefutably answered so many times in my books and articles that I refuse to repeat things for every new troll.
However (and as I have repeatedly said, I will stir myself to write only if and when I feel something has to be clarified in more detail once and for all) his remarks on the racial features of Hittites made me feel that a more detailed exposition of the situation will not be out of place.
But first, please note that this is a side-feature in my OIT case, and I am not the person to have “discovered” that the Hittites had “mongoloid” racial features. Nevertheless, I have indeed used this as an additional argument for my case, and so it is proper that I should either withdraw the argument as faulty, or reiterate it. I find it completely impossible to withdraw the argument as faulty in any way, as there is no fault. Hence this article to reiterate my argument in more detail.
There are two aspects involved:
1. Did the Hittites have “mongoloid” features?
2. If they did, what does it show about their geographical origins?
I. Did the
Hittites have “mongoloid” features?
But their “ethnic” identity was well known long before the discovery of their linguistic identity. It was only in the beginning of the twentieth century that their language was discovered and studied in detail and they were conclusively identified linguistically as Indo-Europeans. Shortly after this, a paper in the Journal of the American Oriental Society makes the following incidental observations: “While the reading of the inscriptions by Hrozny and other scholars has almost conclusively shown that they spoke an Indo-European language, their physical type is clearly Mongoloid, as is shown by their representations both on their own sculptures and on Egyptian monuments. They had high cheek-bones and retreating foreheads.” (CARNOY 1919:117).
Here is what jewishencyclopedia.com has to say on the subject:
“The Hittites as shown both on their own and on
Egyptian monuments were clearly Mongoloid in type. They were short and stout,
prognathous, and had rather receding foreheads. The cheek-bones were high, the
nose was large and straight, forming almost a line with the forehead, and the
upper lip protruded. They were yellow in color, with black hair and eyes, and
were beardless, while according to the Egyptian paintings they wore their hair
in pigtails, although this characteristic does not appear in the Hittite
sculptures. They would seem to have come from the northeast of Mesopotamia, and
to have worked south into Palestine and west into Asia Minor”
One more example (or rather two) from the book “The
Hittites, The Story of a Forgotten Empire” by A.H.Sayce:
“The Hittites
were a people with yellow skins and ‘mongoloid’ features whose receding
foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws, are represented as
faithfully on their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we
cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their enemies” (SAYCE
1890:15).
“We have seen that the
Hittites were a northern race. Their primitive home probably lay on the
northern side of the Taurus. What they were like we can learn both from their
own sculptures and from the Egyptian monuments, which agree most remarkably in
the delineation of their features. The extraordinary resemblance between the
Hittite faces drawn by the Egyptian artists and those depicted by themselves in
their bas-reliefs and their hieroglyphs, is a convincing proof of the
faithfulness of the Egyptian representations, as well as of the identity of the
Hittites of the Egyptian inscriptions with the Hittites of Carchemish and
Kappadokia.
It must
be confessed that they were not a handsome people. They were short and thick of
limb, and the front part of their faces was pushed forward in a curious and
somewhat repulsive way. The forehead retreated, the cheek-bones were high, the
nostrils were large, the upper lip protrusive. They had, in fact, according to
the craniologists, the characteristics of a Mongoloid race. [102] Like the
Mongols, moreover, their skins were yellow and their eyes and hair were black.
They arranged the hair in the form of a 'pig-tail,' which characterizes them on
their own and the Egyptian monuments quite as much as their snow-shoes with
upturned toes.
In Syria they doubtless mixed with the Semitic race, and the further south they advanced the more likely they were to become absorbed into the native population.” (SAYCE 1890:101).
Many more examples could be given. That they were “mongoloid
in appearance” was never doubted or disputed: until the discovery that
they spoke an Indo-European language made their “mongoloid” features
something to be hushed up so as not to complicate matters in the field of Indo-European
studies!
That was already in the early twentieth century. Today, two new factors add to the need to blank out any reference to these “mongoloid features”:
1. The fact that the old colonial European division of
mankind into three races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) stands rejected as
outdated and unscientific.
2. New ideas about political correctness which frown
on any mention of physical features even in neutral terms for academic
purposes.
Thus, ask the question on google: “Where and when
did “mongoloid" racial features originate?” The Artificial Intelligence
generated answer (ignoring the “where and when” part): “The concept of
"Mongoloid" features originated in the late 18th century as part of a
now-discredited system of classifying humans into distinct races. This
system, developed by Western scholars, included "Mongoloid,"
"Caucasoid," and "Negroid" as primary groupings. The
term "Mongoloid" was initially used to describe people from East
Asia, the Americas, and parts of Oceania. However, modern genetics has
shown that this racial classification is not biologically valid.” Further, it clarifies:
“The term “Mongoloid” was initially based on
perceived physical similarities, particularly facial features, observed in
populations across a wide geographic area”.
“Modern genetics has demonstrated that the concept
of distinct human races, as proposed in the past, is not supported by
scientific evidence”.
“The term “Mongoloid”, along with related terms
like “Mongolian race”, ‘yellow”, or “Asiatic”, is now considered outdated and
offensive”.
All very politically correct and scientific!
But what the whole thing ignores is “The term “Mongoloid” was initially based on perceived physical similarities, particularly facial features, observed in populations across a wide geographic area”. Whether politically correct or not, whether scientifically valid as a means of classifying mankind or not, these features definitely represented “perceived physical similarities, particularly facial features, observed in populations across a wide geographic area”.
Here the real question is only whether or not these physical features (wrongly accepted as a means of classifying mankind, but correctly perceived as physical features physically visible to the human eye) were distinctly seen among the Hittites or not. Or were the Egyptians (and even the Hittites themselves) hallucinating when they depicted Hittites with those physical features? They were merely objectively depicting what they could see before their eyes: they were not trying to establish systems of classifying mankind, nor were they analyzing Hittite DNA or other genetic features, nor trying to provide grounds for any racial political theories or Linguistic Homeland theories.
No-one has yet produced contemporary recorded evidence of depicted Hittite physical features emphasizing that they did not physically have these particular features but were physically exactly similar to their Egyptian and other neighbors in West Asia, or contemporary written testimonies alleging that the depictions were false. Nor are there any modern studies explaining (and convincingly) why exactly the Egyptians and the Hittites themselves depicted Hittites with these features (and indeed explaining how these depicters were so well acquainted with these particular physical features anyway, to the extent that they regularly and unanimously depicted Hittites with these features).
If you put the question “Were the Hittites of mongoloid
race?” on google, the
Artificial Intelligence generated answer is: “No, the Hittites were not of the Mongoloid race. While some
historical accounts and artistic depictions suggest certain physical
characteristics that might be associated with Mongoloid features, such as receding
foreheads and high cheekbones, this is not the dominant or definitive view
among scholars. The Hittites are generally considered to be an
Indo-European people who migrated to Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and
established a powerful empire….[since]
the prevailing view among historians and anthropologists is that the
Hittites were an Indo-European people. Their language Hittite, is classified as
part of the Indo-European language family, which also includes languages like
Greek, Latin and English”
It all boils down to the hand-waving logic: “Oh, we now know that the Hittites were Indo-Europeans, so they cannot possibly have had such physical features. So ignore all those depictions as wrong or irrelevant”!
The case of the gratuitous and automatic transformation of Hittites from having “mongoloid” features to not having “mongoloid” features has several parallels in the AIT/Steppe-Homeland story. The most prominent being how all Indologists analyzing the Vedic evidence before the discovery of the Harappan sites were unanimous that the Aryan invaders were highly civilized people and the natives were savages, But, as soon as the Harappan sites were discovered, it is the natives who became civilized people and the Aryan invaders wandering savages or nomads!
So clearly the “scholarly consensus” is a politically correct afterthought in the context of the discovery that they spoke an IE language, and is not based on the contemporary depictions of the Hittites (or any other kind of evidence) but in fact goes opposite to those depictions!
But, like it or not, the sum of the evidence is still that the Hittites did distinctly have physical features which in the terminology of those times could be correctly described (whether or not now accepted as scientifically valid or politically correct) as “Mongoloid” features.
II. If they did,
what does it show about their geographical origins?
If the Hittites did indeed have what (in the terminology of those times) could be described as “mongoloid” physical features, what does it show about their geographical origins?
I have pointed out in my books and articles that it (the presence of “Mongoloid” physical features among the Hittites) fits in with the OIT, where early groups of Druhyus migrated northwards through Afghanistan into eastern Central Asia before later, in more historical times, migrating westwards around the Caspian Sea into eastern Turkey and thence southwards into historical West Asia.
The troll who keeps raising objections to this “racial” evidence tells me: “Your assumption that the Hittites were “mongoloid” because they dwelled in central asia, before emigrating to Anatoila is an unscientific speculation which is premised upon an outdated source. As per modern scientific studies, central asia during those times wasn’t inhabited by mongoloid people, in fact mongoloid/east asian tribes arrived during the the Hunnic/Turkic related migrations which happened in mediaeval period”.
Since I have encountered this kind of obfuscatory pseudo-scientific argument many times in the past, I felt the need to write this article specifically on the “mongoloid Hittites”. So let me put things very clearly (unfortunately, I cannot add “in words of one syllable intelligible to the meanest intelligence” since I will have to use longer words, and also it is basically not a question of intelligence but of honesty and of willingness to accept facts):
Firstly, it is necessary for everyone to digest the basic fact that the Hittites did indeed have these “mongoloid features”. And that they were physically distinct from all the other people of West Asia specifically on the basis of these “mongoloid features”. So, clearly, since there is no controversy about them being outsiders in the region, the only question is where exactly did they come from bringing these “mongoloid features” which are clearly new to the region.
There can only be three possibilities. The first one − that they dropped out of the sky − we can safely dismiss without further discussion.
The only two other possibilities are either that they came from the northwest (Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes) or that they came from the northeast (Central and eastern Asia).
Apparently, “As per modern scientific studies, central asia during those times wasn’t inhabited by mongoloid people, in fact mongoloid/east asian tribes arrived during the the Hunnic/Turkic related migrations which happened in mediaeval period”. Well, were Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes ever “inhabited by mongoloid people”?
As per the following article, there are several subgroups of communities of people with “mongoloid features” based on geographical distribution and morphological variations, covering the following different areas:
1. Eastern Asia
(China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia Tibet).
2. Arctic
regions (northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, far eastern Siberia).
3. The Americas.
4. Southeast
Asia and many of the Pacific islands.
While the first group, as named in the group, covers only the five countries named above, actually they are found all over the Himalayas and all over the adjoining areas of India. They are also found in Ladakh and northwards and westwards up to most of eastern Central Asia and northern Afghanistan. If the point being made is that they expanded westwards into these areas only in post-Hittite times, then it must be noted that they never ever expanded further westwards into Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes at any point of time convenient to the Steppe Homeland theory (except in much later historical times as invaders: the Huns and Mongols). Clearly, since the Hittites in West Asia did come from the north, and did have “mongoloid features”, they could only have come from the farther eastern direction than from the western one (i.e. from the direction of eastern central Asia, and not from the direction of Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes).
Or else it is
up to those who deny that the Hittites moved into West Asia from an original
location in eastern Central Asia to prove that the inhabitants of the “Steppe Homeland”
of the ancestral Hittites also had “mongoloid features”.
In any case, it is not enough to claim that “As per modern scientific studies, central asia during those times wasn’t inhabited by mongoloid people”:
1. It would firstly be necessary to provide a century-by-century scientifically proven timetable of the progress of such “mongoloid features” into different regions of Central Asia, to prove that the northern-migrating Druhyus of the OIT (who later became the Hittites in West Asia) could not have acquired these features in the required time frame.
2. It would also be necessary to provide a complete century-by-century itinerary of the northward migrating Druhyus to map out the exact areas of Central Asia (or areas further east) which they inhabited at different points of time before finally turning west and moving southeastwards into northeastern Turkey, to prove that they never at any point of time inhabited any “mongoloid-featured” parts of eastern Central Asia (or areas further east). As I myself, the formulator of the OIT, have never imagined how such an itinerary could be drawn out, I don’t know how anyone else (especially those who deny the Druhyu migrations in the first place) would be able to do so.
So, until new and conclusive evidence surfaces to the contrary, the only conclusion that can be logically accepted is that the Hittites with “mongoloid features” could only have emigrated from eastern Central Asia (or areas further east).
Finally, could
this be incorporated into a Steppe Homeland Theory? Theoretically, and by a
great amount of special pleading, it could desperately be argued that
the Hittites set out from the Ukrainian Steppes and marched eastwards all the
way to eastern Central Asia (or areas further east), and had a long
sojourn there, before finally turning west and moving southeastwards into northeastern
Turkey. But wouldn’t that be a bit too thick for any honest person to
swallow? Is it likely that both the earliest branches migrating
out of the PIE Homeland could have, separately, made a beeline for the very distant
east from Ukraine? Is it not more rational to accept a much shorter and natural
journey from NW India through Afghanistan into Central Asia (where, indeed,
Tocharian continued to remain till its last breath)?
Even V Gordon Childe, in many ways a pioneer of IE migration theories, and a staunch protagonist of the Steppe origin of the IE languages, had to reluctantly concede in the case of Tocharian itself that it was very difficult to fit it into the AIT paradigm. As Childe put it: “to identify a wandering of Aryans across Turkestan from Europe in a relatively late prehistorical period is frankly difficult” (CHILDE 1926:95-96). What would he have said about any attempt to identify another such wandering (of Hittites this time) as part of a desperate bid to explain the “mongoloid features” of the Hittites?
FINAL NOTE
ADDED SAME DAY 14 JULY 2025 EVENING:
I will not add anything more after this, because the kind of rubbish I am going to point out now is the only kind of rubbish that I will get from clowns who think they are very clever but don’t realize they are not.
A clown (“Graviton Denier”: does his name indicate that he denies things of gravity or importance?) has apparently reacted to this article as follows:
“Honestly using racial science from 1890
and 1919 instead of modern genetics should be incredibly embarrassing for
anyone, let alone an anti-AIT person”
7:17 PM· JULY
14, 2025.
“Talageri is relying on the same
methodology that claimed Romans and Macedonians had Northern european features,
egyptians had mediterranian features, etruscans had semitic features etc Racist
eurocentrism is fine to him over actual science when it suits his claims”.
7:33 PM· JULY
14, 2025.
“Riddle me this, if someone looked at
this mughal era rajput painting and assumed Krishna actually looked like this,
what face type would he assign Indians too?”
7:36 PM· JULY
14, 2025.
This clown has
apparently not bothered to read the article before jumping into the fray. But
clowns never do. The Egyptian and Hittite (note: Egyptian and Hittite)
artists who depicted both Egyptians and Hittites were not from some other age
and area (as in the examples the clown gives) they were contemporary
artists depicting what was before their eyes. And they had no knowledge
of “racial science from 1890
and 1919” when they produced their artistic depictions, in which
they portrayed the Hittites differently from other West Asians.
I am not “incredibly embarrassed” and have no need to be. But people who display their incredible stupidity with a cleverer-than-thou air do have reason to feel “incredibly embarrassed”. But I don’t think they have the honesty to feel embarrassed. In any case, this is the kind of half-witted reactions that will come, and which (after now having drawn attention to a classic example of such a reaction) I will not bother to waste my time reacting to after this.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
CARNOY 1919: Pre-Aryan Origins of the Persian Perfect. pp. 117-121 in The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.39, 1919.
CHILDE 1926: The Aryans: A study of Indo-European Origins. Childe, V. Gordon. Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. Ltd., London, 1926.
SAYCE 1890: “The Hittites, The Story of a forgotten Empire”, the Religious Tract Society, Piccadilly, 1890.
