[edited several times for more precise language]
[edited several times for more precise language]
There have been some disparate rightists who have claimed that Kennewick Man (a human who lived in what is now Washington State, USA 8,358 ± 21 14C years before present) is European in ethnic origin. These people are obviously not informed of the genetic study done on The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man which revealed him to be most closely related to modern Native Americans.
The genetic admixture which most closely relates Kennewick Man, Native Americans, and other East Eurasians with Europeans comes from the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a population living in Siberia at least 24,000 years ago which was most closely related to early West Eurasians (link, link). Ancient Y chromosomes of this ANE group, uncovered from Mal’ta (MA-1) and Afontova Gora (AG3), belong to the Y chromosomal haplogroup R, a branch of the Y chromosomal haplogroup P which diversified c. 31,900 years before present. Some migrations out of Siberia after this time are likely responsible for the current predominance of Y chromosomal haplogroups Q and R (branches of P) in Native Americans and Northern Europeans, respectively (I happen to belong to R-L513), as well as the ANE admixture found in these groups.
Davidski at Eurogenes also suggests (link) that there may have been a very early incursion of ANEs into the East Eurasian gene pool. If this is true, it may be responsible for the predominance of certain non-P lineages of Y-haplogroup K2, including K2a, K2b1, K2c, K2d, M, N, O, and S (which diverged from the ancestor of haplogroup P around 45400 years before present) among a variety of East Eurasians including the Ust’-Ishim Man from Siberia 45,000 years ago. Keeping in mind that the ANEs were most closely related to early West Eurasians, it is also possible that such an early incursion of ANE admixture is responsible for the East Eurasian presence of Y haplogroup C, which diversified ~47,900 YBP and was also found in some ancient West Eurasians such as Kostenki-14 and the Mesolithic La Brana specimen. Regarding the impact on mitochondrial (maternal) lineages, an early addition and ANE admixture to the East Asian gene pool may have brought mitochondrial haplogroup N which is normally found in West Eurasians, but is also significantly present in some very disparate East Eurasian populations such as Australian Aborigines, and certain Siberian and Native American peoples (and even the Ust’-Ishim specimen).
East Asians such as the Han, Koreans and Japanese also appear to have received a later addition of ANE admixture, but it was much less than that received around the same time by Siberians and the Siberian ancestors of Native Americans (see the supplementary data on pages 145-147 in here). Kennewick Man appears to have received 40-45 % of his genome from this later ANE admixture event; the Han, Koreans and Japanese received about 10-12 %, and the Andamanese Onge, an isolated population in the Indian Ocean, presumably received little to none and was used as a control in the analysis.
What East Eurasians (including Australoid peoples, East Asians, Native Americans, and Siberians) possess which differentiates them from West Eurasians (“Causaoids”) is admixture from another, apparently basal East Eurasian group which diverged 60,000-65,000 YBP from other Eurasians. This basal East Eurasian group seems a likely origin of the East Eurasian presence of Y haplogroup D (which is basal to all other Eurasian Y haplogroups except for E) and mitochondrial haplogroup M, which both formed between 60,000 and 65,000 YBP. Perhaps not coincidentally, both mitochondrial haplogroup M and Y chromosomal haplogroup D reach relative maxima in Tibet and Japan. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Y haplogroup D also diversified around the same time as Y haplogroups C and K2 (~45,000 YBP). This would seem to indicate that the East Eurasian gene pool underwent a population bottleneck until around 45,000 YBP when it received a large amount of ANE admixture (which appears already present in the Ust’-Ishim man from this time period). Under this model, over the next ~40,000 years, the East Eurasian gene pool underwent a massive geographic and genetic diversification.
I have decided to reevaluate my views on the application r/K selection theory to humans as done by Rushton and the Anonymous Conservative (whom I will refer to as AC). The blogger RaceRealist made a fairly good case that Rushton’s application (and by extension AC’s) of r/K selection theory to humans is based on false premises.
Race Realist responded to me in the following comment:
Thanks for being objective. That’s rare to find nowadays.I’ve spent years researching Rushton’s theory and thinking about how it applies to humans. Then I thought ‘Why only read what I agree with here when I don’t do that for other things?’ Then I found Judith Anderson’s ecology critique and then I went back to read the Graves paper that I just handwaved away.Rushton’s misapplication of r/K theory was based on Pianka’s (1970) r/K continuum. That’s wrong. Describing behaviors as ‘r’ or ‘K’ is stupid. r and K describe agents of selection. Endemic disease is an agent of K while cold winters are an agent of r—which Rushton completely reversed! He literally arbitrarily put r-selection to Africans and K to Eurasians because it ‘fit with the data’. True—it did.However where he went wrong was 1) treating human races as local populations (he’d need to look at one population in one ecosystem and compare it to another in a different one. These populations can be on the same continent (Africa) or two different ones (say, Africa and Northern Europe). 2) to apply the theory based on behaviors in modern environments makes no sense. Organisms MUST be studied in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. Not doing so means it’s fine to disregard what he says about r/K selection in application to humans. Even omitting the racial comparisons doesn’t save it. 3) Evolutionary biologists and ecologists don’t even use the theory anymore.I’ve brought this up to PumpkinPerson and he won’t take to it. I’ve explained to him that Rushton reversed r and K for humans (if it were applicable to us) and he still spews Rushton’s garbage. I know that it’s tough to change your beliefs and then the backfire effect occurs (which occurs when you’re presented with new information then do anything you can to find information to back what you originally thought after presented with said new information). That’s one cognitive bias I’ve learned to nip in the bud recently. I’ve also found it much easier to change my view by reading new information myself.Now I’m at the bookstore every week in the biology section buying new books (I did this anyway) that are the opposite of what I believe to see what I think after. Constantly reevaluating your views is the logical—and intellectually honest—thing to do.So anyone who pushes this theory is pushing a wrong theory, and applying it to other aspects of our lives also makes no sense. Behaviors are not ‘r’ or ‘K’. Behaviors are responses to the selective agent—whether it is r or K. People like Anonymous Conservative, Stephan Molyneaux and the other guys you brought up then—by proxy—push a wrong theory. Read the papers provided and follow the references to read more in depth about how to apply it—and why it’s not in use anymore.This, then, leaves use with one troubling conclusion: anything based off of Rushton’s r/K selection theory is wrong by proxy. Rushton didn’t understand evolution and life history theory (r/K selection). I saw one critique of Rushton’s theory saying that ‘only a bad person would push a theory like this’. That’s a flawed retort. Ad hominem attacks in scholarly discussion do not work. Theories like Rushton’s must be deconstructed to show how and why they are wrong, lest other people believe something that is horribly flawed and incorrect.I’ll most definitely be showing others how and why Rushton is wrong as well. Rushton was wrong about a ton from penis size to testosterone. This is just the nail in the coffin.Rushton didn’t even reply to Graves or Anderson in print, take that for what you will.
… so now you know the gist of the problem I suppose.
Personally speaking, some of AC’s views have rubbed me the wrong way, largely because of his sometimes neoconservative bent. This is not to say he does not have more praiseworthy and transcendent ideas, he does, but this still does not overshadow larger problems: that r/K selection was not applied in the way it theoretically should have been, and that the theory itself is discredited: see RaceRealist’s recent blog post for details.
I previously wrote a post on Tolkien’s Elves and r/K selection theory, in which I described Tolkien’s elves as a K-selected ideal in a universal sense. I now reject this idea. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the elves have managed to follow an evolutionary strategy which gives them high fitness in their usual habitats. Thier phenotypes are also characteristically Northern European. So I still think of the elf as a biological ideal, but not in a universal sense of being “the measure of all things”. Rather the elves are a particular aristocratic ideal of the Germanic and to a certain degree Insular Celtic peoples who first conceived of them in their mythologies (and yes, just as some elves have dark hair, a minority of Germanic people such as King Halfdan the Black did/do as well).
From a Jungian perspective, the elf is an archetype which is part of the collective unconscious of Northwestern Europeans. It is, in my view, what would normally direct them (or perhaps I should say us given that I am a NW Euro) on a eugenic evolutionary path. This can be completed through selection for biological fitness in one’s environment and through endogamy within a biologically related clade or “subrace” (while excluding 1st – 3rd cousin marriages). The result is a eugenic biological transcendence from the parent race, and species, to form a new aristocratic clade.
As an end note, the current demographic pressures on the NW European gene pool may act as the refining fire from which a new aristocratic clade will emerge. Remember: it is always darkest before the dawn and what does not kill us will only make us stronger.
Interesting article on ethnocentrism:
Recently there has been a major comments war on Amerika.org regarding the website moderator’s take on one of my posts which I published a few weeks ago. Dare I import the war onto my own blog? Apparently, I am insane enough to do this.
Do the Irish have “negroid” admixture?
(The following map includes both Sub-Saharan and North African components)
Apparently not [the data for this map gives 0% African admixture to the Irish].
West Asian (Northern Middle Eastern) admixture?
It is found at low frequencies throughout Northwestern Europe.
Admixture related to Semitic peoples?
There is a small amount in all Europeans except for a few Eastern Europeans, the Saami, Finns, Basques, and Catalans.
Martian admixture? (someone actually suggested this!)
Give me a break.
So what makes the Irish a little bit different from the English, and pulled slightly in the same direction as Iberians are on a genetic principal component analysis?
A bit more Atlantic admixture (combination of Neolithic farmer and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer) most likely from the Megalithic period is responsible for this. The Irish have more than the English, but the English have some of this admixture as well. It peaks in the Basques, is relatively high in Eastern Iberia and the “Celtic Fringe”, followed by other geographically Western European populations, but is much lower in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near East, and Northern Africa.
This admixture peaks in the Basque population and appears to be a blend of Near Eastern Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic European Hunter-Gatherers. It matches mostly the extent of the Atlantic Megalithic culture. Several ancient samples were added to GEDMatch and analysed with Eurogenes K15. Nine Megalithic Iberian samples (3211-1518 BCE) had an average Atlantic percentage of 38.8%, similar to modern Basques. Three samples from the Remedello culture in Late Neolithic northern Italy (3483-1773 BCE) scored an average of 35.2%, considerably more than modern Italians, even Sardinians. One Megalithic Irish sample from Ballynahatty had 32.7% of Atlantic, about the same as modern Irish people. (source)
If you don’t like these admixture maps, then go argue with Maciamo Hay on Eupedia about them. I have my own life to live.
Using the knowledge I have collected on the subject, I will attempt to lay out the theory of monarchy in the context of Indo-European religion. This is not an attempt to discuss the merits or demerits of such a political and religious system in contrast to, for instance, integral Catholicism, or even to presuppose that it could retake the entire West, but more intended as expository writing, should such information be useful in the future.