Recent Insights on European Genetics

Back in October 2017, one commenter proposed the idea that the Sea Peoples were Luwians (a people who occupied southern and western Anatolia in the late Bronze Age). I think this may likely be the case. Southern Europeans, especially Italians and Cypriots are highly admixed with Bronze Age Anatolians. Modern Cypriots are genetically almost the same as the Bronze Age Anatolians, and Cyprus was very heavily invaded by the Sea Peoples. See this article for historical information on Sea Peoples raids.


The immigration of Phoenicians and Roman importation of slaves from the Levant would have added to the gene flow from the Near East to Mediterranean Europe, and both Levantine (“England_Roman_outlier”) and Bronze Age Anatolian admixture are present in modern Italians according to these models. I suspect the common admixture between Italians and Cypriots from Anatolian “Sea Peoples” is a reason why Cypriots and some Aegeans, show up as having Italian admixture according to 23 and Me (see Eupedia Autosomal Maps). The Mycenean samples also had significant admixture from the Anatolian Bronze Age, possibly indicating some substantial gene flow from Anatolia into Europe directly prior to the expansion of “Sea Peoples”.

7th-century Slavic tribes shown in orange

Also according to the models done on Eurogenes, it appears that the Greeks, in addition to their large Mycenean ancestry also have a great deal of early Slavic ancestry, which I suspect is from Slavic invasions of Byzantine Greece. This Slavic admixture (rather than the Dorians as I previously guessed) may be responsible for the more northern genetic affinity of modern Greeks compared to their Mycenean ancestors.




Other News

Davidski has reviewed many of the more recent genetic studies, which are being produced quite rapidly, and covering a lot of previously unknown territory.

As I have already predicted above, the notion that Sicilians have acquired greater amounts of admixture from different parts of the Near East since the Bronze Age (different from the Anatolian Neolithic “Barcin” admixture) appears to be empirically supported:

Some of his other articles on the genetics of Northern Europeans seem to confirm what I had noticed last year, that the main difference between the Baltic and Slavic ethnic groups and other Northern Europeans is their greater affinity towards Mesolithic and Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers. Germanic and Celtic ethnic groups appear to roughly form a genetic cline with the French (mostly Gauls) and Irish (Gaels) on one relative extreme and a (Germanic) Swedish Iron age specimen at the other. Many of the Bell Beakers who have been recently analyzed in the Olalde et al. 2018 study, Anglo Saxons, and Iron Age Britons appear in the middle of this cline.

The impact of the Beakers still remains something of a mystery to me; genetically their admixture is very similar to modern Northwestern Europeans, but their skull morphology is often brachycephalic, a feature in modern times largely confined to the mountainous areas of continental Europe. Either there was a very strong selection for less brachycephalic individuals among the beakers in the last 4000 years, the lowland and island areas of NW Europe became populated by a meso- to dolichocephalic group with admixture very similar to the Beakers, or the brachycephaly of the Beaker people was caused by a cultural habit, possibly a cranial deformation, that later went out of style.

Thanks to the recent Veeramah et al. 2018 study, we now also have a glimpse at the genetics of migration era individuals.

Is suspect that the Roman soldier excavated from Germany for this study was of Iberian or Aquitanian origin, based on his placement on the PCA.

It would appear from the admixture model given by Davidski that the Gepid included in the study was descended from genetically Northern European Germans who had acquired significant admixture from Central Asia (possibly through the Alans, a Scythian people who had dwelt near the Caucasus and migrated into Europe). The “Ostrogoth” excavated from Crimea, unlike the Gepid, is modeled as having no Northern European admixture but appears highly admixed with gene flow from the Balkans and from Armenia, and this seems to agree with his rough position on the PCA given. Furthermore, the “Ostrogoth’s” archeological context also associates him with the ancient Greek city of Pantikapaion. So it seems plausible that this “Ostrogoth” may have simply been a Greek heavily admixed with peoples from the eastern shore of the Black Sea, and not at all an ethnic Ostrogoth.




Revising a Pathology

My previous pathology, written in early 2017, which blamed the “third estate” for the decline of Western peoples was written before I understood operationalism. The article basically attempted to identify markets as the source of the West’s malaise, but did not also take into consideration that markets in everything have also been responsible for making the West different from the rest in many positive aspects (I was somewhat of a mystical authoritarian at the time, and have grown more libertarian since late 2017, but not in the anarchist sense). However, there was a shred of truth in my argument. NW Europeans (possibly because they evolved this way) value markets a lot, so much that they sacrifice their own nations for markets (which is, in the long run, self-contradictory, as homogeneity makes it easier to have a high trust, market society).

I also criticized “pure meritocracy” which may have set some people off. What was meant is that there is a flaw in the modern Anglo version of meritocracy, as it has allowed people to obtain political power without having shares of the commons, and yet this is what most people (esp. normies) think of when they think of meritocracy. I think that this type of “meritocracy” is a result of prioritizing markets, specifically in governments and in occupations, ahead of nations. If a new meritocracy is implemented, it needs to be done differently. The political classes must have shares of commons if they are to be trusted to maintain those commons.


The Characteristics of Ideologues

After several unempirical, and overly philosophical attempts to determine the origins of general political ideologies, I have attempted to gain more accurate information on the subject.

Please keep in mind that what is being discussed here is characteristics related specifically to ideologies and sentiments, not necessarily political parties, as one’s choice to vote democrat or republican, for instance, could depend on one of a number of ideologies or sentiments favored by that party (it makes for imprecise analysis to use party as a proxy for sentiment or ideology).

In a dataset drawn from the US, both conservatism and religiosity had strong negative correlations with general intelligence measured in adolescence, when age, sex, race, earnings, education, and religion were held as control variables (Kanazawa, 2010). These correlations [of political ideology and religiosity] with intelligence are twice as strong compared to those relating political ideology to sex or to race, or religion to sex (Kanazawa, 2010). General intelligence, in the view of Satoshi Kanazawa, enables one to deal with the costs of novel phenomena, hence its correlation with liberalism (Kanazawa, 2010). In another study, data from the UK showed racial prejudice, largely mediated through ideology, to be associated with relatively lower intelligence in childhood, and data from the United States showed prejudice against homosexuals to be associated with poor abstract reasoning, often mediated through authoritarianism; education and socioeconomic status were controlled for both data sets (Hodson & Busseri, 2012). Conservatives also think less analytically and more holistically than liberals (Talhelm et al., 2014), similar to most people outside of Western cultures.

Libertarians, unlike “conservatives”, think in a very analytical or characteristically “Western” manner (link). People who have classical liberal sentiments towards economics and social issues also have above average verbal intelligence (Carl, 2014). Data from Great Britain and Brazil indicates center-right, and to a lesser degree center and center-left views correlating with higher intelligence (Rinderman, et al., 2011). Anti-regulation and economic “conservatism”, a.k.a. economic “liberalism” in European vocabulary, also correlates with higher intelligence (link).

As far as beauty and ugliness go, the trends are that left-leaning scholars appear to be more attractive than right-leaning scholars and right-leaning politicians more attractive than left-leaning politicians (link).

Now I will add my own anecdotes and notes related to this subject

  • (edited) the original r/K selection theory studies density-dependent selection, and modifications to the model have been made to account for other variables; r/K selection theory may be accurately considered incomplete, but not “disproven”. has explained the problems with r/K selection theory in the way it has been used by Anonymous Conservative.
  • Social conservatives are often highly natalist in sentiment, often appear to marry early, and sometimes display low trust sentiments. I am tempted to say that these characteristics, along with their lower average IQ, greater holistic thinking, and poorer abstract reasoning, associates them with certain clannish populations. Clannish Europeans east of the Hajnal Line responded to high mortality with high fertility and high nuptiality, and appear to have lower average intelligence than historically outbred Europeans. Various types of liberalism likely derive from the less clannish, outbred European strategy associated with higher IQ, lower mortality, lower fertility, and more people remaining unmarried. See the bloggers: HBD chick, JayMan, and Evo and Proud for more information on the effects of outbreeding and other selective pressures on Western Europeans. Alternative Hypothesis has also done interesting work correlating certain allele variations with political attitudes often different between indigenous Westerners and third world migrants.


Mycenaean DNA and Other Curiosities

[I did not have time to write this, but I did so anyway, to let out intellectual frustration.]

Last summer a study was published on the genetic origins of the Mycenaeans and Minoans. It turns out that they were similar, but the Mycenaeans, whom we know had an Indo-European language, possessed a small amount of steppe-related admixture which the Minoans did not (so as a side note, this is more evidence for the “Kurgan hypothesis”). Both Mycenaeans and Minoans are related to modern Mediterranean Europeans, but in fact possessed less Northern European admixture than modern day Greeks (which contradicts the Nordicist narrative). I think this difference may be due to a subsequent Dorian invasion after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. The Dorians did worship a Nordic-looking deity, Apollo, and a new addition of Northern European blood, possibly from an off-shoot of the Corded Ware, may be the reason for the inclusion of characters with a Nordic pigmentation in the myths of Hesiod and Homer, who both wrote after the Dorian invasion.

From Eurogenes

Now regarding the perennial arguments about Nordicism and non-WASPs, it should first be noted that even Madison Grant acknowledged in The Passing of the Great Race that both Nordic and Mediterranean phenotypes were present in the British Isles, not only in the Irish, but also in the Welsh, English, and Scotts. All of these ethnic groups possess some admixture from both “Nordic” peoples from the Corded Ware Culture and its successors, and to a lesser degree, earlier Neolithic inhabitants of a more Mediterranean appearance. The confusion that has arisen here is due to the conflation of geographic and linguistic groups: “English”, “Irish”, “Scottish”, with phenotypes. As I showed before, none of these ethnic groups possess significantly more Levantine blood than continental Germanic and Scandinavian peoples. Any differences in phenotype are for a different reason, such as possessing more of an older admixture from the Megalithic era, due to geographic isolation (which makes more sense than a pseudohistorical migration of Semitic tribes into Northwestern Europe, which would have left significant amounts of Y chromosomal haplogroup J1, which is at low to null frequencies in the native British and Irish populations (edited)).

Another thing I would like to bring up is that Irish admixture is now present to some degree in Icelanders and Norwegians because of their slave trade in the Viking period. It is also present in the Scotts because of a migration from Ireland into Scotland during the early middle ages under the Dal Riata kingdom (which is why Scotland spoke Gaelic for several centuries and has many surnames beginning with Mc and Mac). The Vikings did take many slaves from Scotland and Ireland and brought them to Norway and Iceland, and eventually, they became incorporated into the Norse population. This admixture event is evident in the Y-chromosomal makeup of Iceland and Norway, in contrast to that of other Scandinavian and continental Germanic peoples (the Icelanders and Norwegians have more R1b-L21, which peaks in Ireland and Scotland).

Likewise, the Swedes and Germans probably have a small amount of Slavic admixture at the present time, given that a minority of them possess a Y-Chromosome lineage (R1a-M458) predominate among Western Slavs and much less common in other ethnic groups.

So it is clear that Nordic peoples possess some amount of admixture from non-Germanic ethnic groups. Notions of Germanic purity are at the present time difficult to prove.

I wrote this piece as someone probably classifiable as Nordic, with a long angular face; a high, long, European nose; green eyes; pale skin, and golden brown hair (in full light). My intent here is not to support Mediterranism or Nordicism but to provide a perspective of realism regarding European phenotypes and their relation to ethnicities and geographic areas.



A Word on Kennewick Man and East Eurasian Genetics

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.



Dumping r/K and Revising Views on the Elves

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.

See Also:

Interesting article on ethnocentrism:


Here we go again …

Recently there has been a major comments war on 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.