The Ottoman world created a socio-political context in which identities were continuously shaped and re-shaped. A serious analysis of Ottoman identities reveals not only their complexities but it also reveals a specific understanding of the very concept of identity. Identity in the Ottoman world was deeply rooted in types. Ottomans were keenly aware of types, such as determined by social standing or estate/class, occupational attachments (guilds), religious and spiritual affiliations, gender, age group, ethnicity, place of residence (climes), family and even humoral configuration. Every type had a predictable behavioral pattern to which general adherence seems to have been expected. A number of physiognomy treatises written for the court in the late sixteenth century proposed a typology, which provided the ruling elite with a map for understanding its subjects so as to better identify and, ultimately, govern them better. This presumed a diversity of types, each of which had to be treated in a particular way based on its proclivities. The same physiognomy treatises further demonstrate that the Ottoman court was drawing on existing knowledge of prevalent types for the creation and categorization of its own typology. This suggests a complex process in which the court approached its subjects as members of a type, which could be studied and included into a larger typology. This paper examines the construction of a late sixteenth century Ottoman typology based on two specific physiognomical treatises by Talîḳîzâde (d. 1600) and Bâlîzâde Mustafa (d. 1618), both dedicated to Sultan Murad III upon his accession to the Ottoman throne in 1574. By definition, physiognomy “consists of inferring the inner character from the exterior state.” It is generally conveyed through a list of protasis and apodosis between particular shapes and sizes of body parts and their equivalents in terms of moral character. Talîḳîzâde and Bâlîzâde Mustafa did not neglect that fundamental and defining aspect of Ottoman physiognomy in their treatises. However, they expanded (and re-defined) it by introducing different “paths” of physiognomy. These paths went beyond character discernment based on physical appearance to include a person’s gender and life-period, as well as background factors such as social estate/class, race/ethnicity, and clime.