Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

I received this comment today. I deleted the comment and banned the poster because he insulted me, but his comments are interesting nonetheless. His position is that most Caucasian populations are significantly admixed with non-Caucasian, and I am afraid he is right. There are probably few if any pure Whites or pure Caucasians.

The guy appears to be some sort of a Hindu nationalist type and he seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Indians are mostly White, especially high caste ones of which he seems to be a part. He is quite offended by the idea that Indians are part-Australoid, but that is how they show up on some charts.

He says the Australoid component is more similiar to SE Asians such as Thai people. However, this Asian component also looks something like the Asian part of the Ancient Northeast Asian group. The Asian part of the ANE’s has been called different things, but to me they look Ainuid. So the Asian part of Indians looks like Ainuids/Thais. I think he may really be onto something here. It is a good hypothesis.

He is just wrong about some things below. ANE did not originate in Amerindians (How did that happen? Did it move back from the Americas to Asia?); instead, Amerindians are obviously partly derived from ANE from Northeast Asia itself. The Karitiana of Brazil have the highest ANE ever found. They may be the remains of some of the earliest settlers to the Americans.

The Chukchi are probably also heavily ANE somehow because these very Asian-looking Eskimo like people actually plot Caucasian on some charts! So in Far Northeastern Asia, early Caucasoids and early Asians have been mixing it up for some time. He also notes that Berbers have a lot of Black blood. This is correct. In fact, on some charts, Berbers plot outside of Caucasian altogether and end up slightly into the the Black or African quadrant.

He also says that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of Asian and Black in them. Asian maybe (ancient Asian). Black, no way. I have seen charts showing that Ashkenazi Jews and other people of the Caucasus have the least amount of Black of any White group on Earth. How hilarious for Stormfronters that Jews are the most pure of all the Whites. Australoids are absolutely not archaic Whites or archaic Caucasians.

This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals.

Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.

Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another.

In other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-6

They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India who are not even a part of the caste system to begin with, no other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information here.

It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids – those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation. And this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture – ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is with different components for different people/castes in India.

The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between at least four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

It has also conclusively shown that all populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to huge amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 4

In Europe today, it peaks among Estonians at just over 1

What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are not a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids – except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai.

According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 7

It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-1

If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole – he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations

In addition to the Reich et. al paper and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project, which is helmed by a genetic expert and is working in combination with Reich’s data is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned.

According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between caste/location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper castes being the most Caucasian of all – up to 9

All of the Northwest Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-1

As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 7

For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-3

If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet.

For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-6

Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and Northwest, are between 5-1

Let’s start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on average 1

The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers, who can be up to 3

So on average, MENA people are 75-8

As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 1

However, some groups of Turkmen average 2

Even many Turkish people are 10-2

So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, being on average 80-8

Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians.

The ANE component is composed of 4

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link which itself references this landmark paper:

It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-5

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it.

What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.

What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

Therefore, according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-1

Keeping in mind that in the Near East among Lezgins, Chechens and Ossetians, ANE is in the 23-2

A table with ANE scores from a recent paper. Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did not include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry?

Well, lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns are 80-8

Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are at least 13-1

Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 1

Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:

  • Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
  • Proto West Eurasians + ASI/ANE-like = South Asians and Central and West Asians
  • Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans

And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 3

The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most 1

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

38 thoughts on “Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements”

    1. you must be a butthurt indian nationalist. you peoples want to be grouped with Caucasians lol. I mean, just look at your face in mirror!
      see how these Indian nationalist monkeys getting butthurt seeing the Australoid mixture in them .
      https://www.quora.com/How-different-is-an-average-Indian-from-an-average-Pakistani/answers/35956061

      main article:
      https://realhistoryindia.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/aryans-were-caucasoid-sub-races-only/

  1. What do you picture future populations look like in 200 years Robert?
    Do you think everyone will be mixed or some unforseen war will cause a large decrease in the human population. Maybe countries breaking apart or new ones forming?

    It’d be nice to see an article about your future predictions.

  2. “There is nothing like a (white) dame.
    Nothing in the world.
    There is nothing you can name,
    That is anything like a (white) dame.

  3. “What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.”

    “Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians, Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way.”

    It’s really interesting when you travel to the Baltic countries to actually witness this admixture in person. The Sami people, for instance, are an excellent example. Almost albino coloring (platinum-blonde hair; blue or grey irises), but almond-shaped eyes and an Asiatic facial bone structure. So beautiful 🙂

  4. Robert, just as an addendum/clarification to my post above:

    I’d first like to address the point I made about the genetic makeup of South Asians, including Indians:

    I’m glad you appreciated my post and accepted the validity of the crux of it, especially the major point that Indians have two major ancestral components, ANI and ASI, with ANI being closest to modern-day Georgians and 100% Caucasian in genetic makeup and ASI being a ~60%-40% mix of Caucasian and ancient South-East Asian (related to the ANE component in Europeans) respectively. I also pointed out that the 40-50% of ASI that is non-Caucasian is ancient South-East Asian admixture for the majority of South Asians, and that it has nothing to do with any other source population.

    However, I noticed that you mentioned something about the Australoid-like component in a minority of (lowest-caste) South and East Indians that show up on a few charts (though not the majority). It seems like you are implying that other Indian populations might also have this admixture. This is completely, patently false.

    While I conceded that these isolated tribal groups in the South and Far East of India have a few genetic markers pertaining to Australoid-like populations, I carefully pointed out the fact that other mainland, Subcontinental populations have NO Australoid genetic ancestry to speak of. This includes all other Indians who do not belong to these super-small minorities that live in isolation and are composed of tribal groups and untouchables outside of the caste system.

    As far as the tribal populations I alluded to earlier are concerned, it is true that some members among them share certain markers with a common ancestor of Australoid-like people, as recent genetic research has shown:

    http://blog.23andme.com/news/direct-genetic-link-between-australia-and-india-provides-new-insight-into-the-origins-of-australian-aborigines/

    However, this is only limited to a super-small minority of tribes that are exceptionally geographically and racially isolated with no contact with the outside world. Even these tribes have been shown to be more similar to each other than to Australoid-like populations, as has been published in peer-reviewed research:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6479999

    Let me restate and clarify what the latest archaeogenetic research has conclusively shown about the genetics of mainland Indians that belong to the vast majority of castes and sub-castes in India (excluding tribals):

    There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that ASI or the South Indian component in Indians is related to modern-day Australoids or even Negritos. These are the fst distances, the most widely used measure of genetic distance between populations, between ASI and other populations:

    Caucasian: 0.077
    Baloch: 0.08
    NE Asian: 0.081
    NE Euro: 0.082
    SE Asian: 0.084
    SW Asian: 0.091
    Siberian: 0.093
    Mediterranean: 0.095
    Beringian: 0.116
    E African: 0.122
    American: 0.128
    W African: 0.142
    Papuan: 0.145
    Pygmy: 0.188
    San: 0.203
    BTW, Here are the Fst distances for your perusal:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=2

    If one actually reads this fst distance spreadsheet I posted above (with data from Reich et.al and other Harvard geneticists), it is clear that the South Indian/ASI component is closest to Gedrosia (at 0.081) followed by Caucasus (at 0.082) and East Asian (at 0.085) and Northern European at (0.086). This clearly shows that it’s actually closer to Gedrosia and Caucasus than the East Asian components. Again, the component is closest to Caucasian, Baloch, NE Asian, NE Euro and SE Asian in that order. So its closer to Caucasian populations, followed by a Mongoloid South-East Asian population, followed by a North-Eastern European population.

    In other words, the ASI/South Indian component is actually closer to Caucasian populations than even Mongoloid populations, and it is nowhere near close to Australoid populations. In fact, it’s even closer to North Eastern Europeans than Australoids and closer to West and East African than the Papuan component!

    We all know very well that apart from the Siddis and Makranis (exceptionally small, endogamous communities of Africans found on the West Coast of India thanks to the Arab slave trade) there is no SSA/Sub-Saharan African or Negroid genetic influence in South Asia to speak of, so the long-parroted hogwash about there being an Australoid-like component in Indian populations is nothing but hot air. It’s like saying that Indians are part Negroid, which is laughable but according to the distances, it would still be less laughable than saying that they are part-Australoid. In other words, the whole Australoid theory is utterly wrong.

    Also, the South Indian component clusters slightly closer to the West Eurasian components and in particular Gedrosia, a Caucasian component. Being roughly intermediate between the Siberian and Gedrosia components does NOT make the South Asian component Australoid in any way. Especially, when the HAP South Indian component is almost twice as close to the Caucasian component than it is to the Papuan component.

    I’m not saying the South Indian component is completely West Eurasian, but it’s clearly mixed between ANI and ASI with the majority being ANI. In addition, Australoids cluster closest to East Eurasians (in particular Southeast Asians) than other populations. The South Asian/South Indian component is intermediate between Siberian and Gedrosia, Siberian being East Asia, and Gedrosia being Caucasian. It is actually slightly closer to Caucasian components than East Eurasian components, therefore, the component is ~60% Caucasian in nature, as I explained earlier. In fact, that is what Reich suggested in his original paper on ANI-ASI. That it represents ancestry that is not particularly close to either West or East Eurasians, but marginally closer to the Caucasian component, hence the 60% value again.

    The South Indian component is so distant from the Papuan “Australoid-like” component that its laughable to suggest any connection as I explained above. Again, as the fst distances show, it is actually the furthest from all blacks, and then Papuans — Papuans are even further removed from the South Indian component than the East and West Africans! So there is no relation to Australoids/Onge or Papuans at all. If anything, there is a pull towards East Asians, who themselves are closest to some Negrito populations but still quite far away from them.

    Some South Asians pull towards East Asians like all of Europe, particularly Northern and Eastern Europe and even Southern Europe in general, with the same affinities to the same populations, because of the ASI admixture which is present in Europeans in ANE form, which BTW is also 10% SE Asian and Australoid-like according to the latest research. Furthermore, the unusually high South and Southeast Asian scores in some Europeans can be explained by shared ANE ancestry with South Asians (in the form of ASI).

    I’d also like to add that Melanesians and Papuans cluster in an isolated position by themselves and are somewhat divergent from one another, while South Asians are closest to West Eurasians with a pull toward East Eurasians. All that means is that the ASI portion of the South Indian component split less recently from the ancestors of the Papuans compared to other populations and is South-East Asian in nature. In addition, any fst distance over 0.1 is still quite distant.

    Also, Dravidians have been hypothesized to be Caucasoids before admixing with Asians in India. Is it not possible the Brahui are the remnants of the original Dravidian speaking Neolithic West Asian farmers? While the rest of the Dravidian speakers migrated deeper into the subcontinent, the Brahui somehow got isolated in the Gedrosia/Balochistan region but retained their Dravidian language albeit with significant Balochi influence.

    As for Mehrgarh, the Dravidians of that region weren’t forever sedentary. So what I am saying is, some of them did go to West Asian regions. BTW, recently they found Indian mtdna in ancient people all the way in Syria:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/09/ancient-mtdna-haplogroup-m-from-syria.html

    If Indian mtdna has been found in ancient Syrians, then you can be pretty sure that the Dravidians did go to Iran as well.

    In essence, Indians are Mediterranean Whites, with ancestry closest to present-day Georgians, with some Ancient SE Asian admixture of varying levels, based on caste + region of origin. Indians are dark due to the tropical, humid climate, high UV levels and micro-evolution and sexual selection resulting from living in the subcontinent. Also, the fact that their Caucasian component is Mediterranean, specifically, Georgian in nature, combined with their proficient tanning ability and mutation and variation specific to Indian evolution along with the ancient SE Asian admix, also gave them a unique appearance and complexion.

    I’d like to conclude by reiterating the fact that the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian; on 23andme- Indians score 60-95% European, and the Central/West Eurasian Caucasoid component varies from 70-95% in NW India and 50-70% in South India. Here is an ancestry chromosome painting of an archetypal upper-caste Indian man from the NW of India:

    http://i.imgur.com/jVT8gxb.jpg

    As you can see, this man is 90% Caucasian and 10% Asian, and fits right in with the genetic data above. That conclusively proves all of the points/studies/data outlined above. Now I’ll address the other two points you made.

    Now, as far as the point you made regarding Ashkenazi Jews not having Negroid admixture, note how I said that their admixture was distributed between Mongoloid and Negroid, not evenly so. Anyway, here are a couple studies that support my earlier point about them being 16.47% admixed with Negroid and Mongoloid:

    “Serum samples from Armenians, and from Libyan and Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel were tested for Gm (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 24, 26) and for Inv(1) [Km(1)]. The Gm data indicate that all three populations have Negroid and Mongoloid admixture. The minimum amount of admixture varies from 3.1% (Armenians) to 5.5% (Libyan Jews). This admixture had not been detected by the study of other polymorphisms, thus once again underlining the sensitivity of the Gm system.

    The haplotype frequencies among the Libyan Jews are markedly different from those among the Ashkenazi Jews. Surprisingly (coincidentally?) the haplotype frequencies among the Ashkenazi Jews and the Armenians are similar. The Libyan Jews have a significantly higher frequency of Inv 1 than do the Ashkenazi Jews and among the latter, Inv 1 is at least twice as frequent among Polish Jews as it is among Russian Jews.”
    More at this Link:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/t76x467633412wwj/

    Further, more evidence regarding the admixture of Ashkenazi Jews:
    “According to Behar et. al. (2004), 5% of Ashkenazi DNA consists of Central Asian/Siberian Mongoloid Y-DNA Haplogroup Q. Y-DNA R-M17 (R1a1a) chromosomes have been detected at frequencies of 11.5% by Nebel et. al. (2004) and are of Central Asian origin with a probable vector of transmission in the Turko-Mongoloid Khazars. If we accept a proximate Turko-Mongoloid origin for Khazar Eu 19 chromosomes as was proposed by Nebel et. al. (2004), it could be argued that 16.5% of Ashkenazi Y-DNA is of Mongoloid origin. Admixture ratios for Ashkenazi mtDNA might be even higher. And of course, Negroid admixture (being approximately 1%) is negligible.”

    Even more evidence:
    “According to the supplementary data of Behar et. al. (2004) on low-frequency Ashkenazi mtDNA’s, they have a total of 3.7% non-Caucasoid maternal admixture, with the Negroid mtDNA haplogroup L2a being the most common at 1.8%.”
    Link: http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000625.html

    And more evidence yet again:
    “I also forgot to mention that Behar et. al. (2004) also indicates that Ashkenazi Jews have non-Caucasoid Y-DNA haplogroups N and E*(xE3b), for a grand total of 6.1% non-Caucasoid ancestry (including Q). Added to R-M17, this comes out to 17.6% Mongoloid admixture.”

    Link: http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000627.html

    “The presence of three haplotypes at very low frequencies (0.3– 1.5%) in Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations (1A, 3A, and YAP1 5) may be explained by low levels of gene flow from sub-Saharan African populations. This conclusion is consistent with the observed presence of low frequencies of African mtDNA haplotypes in Jewish populations (16). Two haplotypes (1U and 1C) that are common in Asian populations (33) were present at low frequencies in Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations.
    (Table 1).”

    “Autosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA samples of Ashkenazic Jews occasionally reveal faint signals of descent from Sub-Saharan Africans from West, Central, South, and East Africa who belong to the Negroid race, which is typified by the Bantu peoples and differentiated from the Pygmy and Bushmen races as well as from the North African Caucasoids (white Berbers and Coptic Egyptians). The hairstyle amusingly called the “Jewfro”, sported by those rare Ashkenazim who have very curly hair of a kinky sort and don’t artificially straighten it, is a probable physical indicator of this descent.

    Most Ashkenazic Jews, however, have no genetic trace of Sub-Saharan African descent. Scientific laboratory admixture tests usually show that most Ashkenazim are basically zero percent Sub-Saharan autosomally. This page collects anecdotes from Ashkenazim who did inherit this ancestry. Genetic testing reveals that some (but not all) Ashkenazic Jews from Eastern Europe descend a little bit from Sub-Saharan African black people.

    Comprehensive maternal and paternal haplogroup analysis shows that a woman, rather than a man, was the source of this ancestry. (The common Ashkenazic Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1 originated with Caucasoid or proto-Caucasoid people living in northeast Africa or Arabia. As noted above, E1a1a1 might likewise be rooted with Caucasoids of ancient northeast Africa.)”
    More at this link:

    http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/aj-ss-african-admixture.html

    And finally, the kicker, the latest study demonstrating the obvious Negroid admixture in all Jews, including the Ashkenazim:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373

    From the abstract: “Previous genetic studies have suggested a history of sub-Saharan African gene flow into some West Eurasian populations after the initial dispersal out of Africa that occurred at least 45,000 years ago. However, there has been no accurate characterization of the proportion of mixture, or of its date. We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations.

    Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations. This may reflect descent of these groups from a common ancestral population that already had some African ancestry prior to the Jewish Diasporas.”

    So there, that proves without a doubt, that the Ashkenazim are heavily admixed between Mongoloids and Negroids, along with certain Southern European population groups (as you well know already).

    Finally, just to clarify, I didn’t say that ANE originated in Amerindians, on the contrary, I stated that “All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians….the ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%….

    This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America….It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events….

    ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture…What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population….What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.”

    In essence, what I stated is that the ANE found in Europeans links them to Amerindian populations because both groups have ANE ancestry, and the ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%., and this ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

    And it does look like Northern Europeans are truly descended in part from a population which has affinities to the “First Americans.” I say this specifically because the Siberian samples they tested actually gave a weaker result than the South American Amerindians on the 3-population test, showing that they are descended from an ancestral East Asia population that is Amerindian-like and that has affinities to the Amerindians of today. More info here:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/#.VfRxbs44JNZ

    That sums it up. Let me know if you’d like more information about anything. Of course, all of these studies are freely available for anyone’s perusal.

  5. Just a final note, caste if NOT genetically arbitrary, despite what some lower-caste Indians and Blacks and Hispanics and Europeans may claim; all the scientific evidence and data we have so far completely contradicts this notion.

    In other words, castes are not arbitrary units made up by the British to divide the South Asian population — they have a solid basis in thousands of years of systematic endogamous practices, to the exclusion of less Caucasian individuals. In essence, the Hindu caste system was set up by the Indo-Aryan Caucasians to ensure that they would retain as much of their Caucasian blood as possible, and it seems like they definitely succeeded in that endeavor, if not better than most Caucasoid (including some European and Russian populations) worldwide, then at the very least, equal to Caucasoid populations worldwide, from the Europeans to the Middle Easterners to the Levantines to even some Northern African groups that are less admixed with Negroid populations. Here is more information on the scientific evidence that backs up the existence and validity of caste: http://www.harappadna.org/2011/06/caste-is-not-ancestrally-arbitrary/

    And always remember, if you ever come across a Hindu who looks distinctively lower caste and claims to be upper-caste, then he is nothing but a pariah pretending to be upper-caste, an exercise that lower-caste individuals frequently engage in, using a process known as “Sanskritization” the existence of which was noted by British Anthropologists during the Raj. Common symptoms of this include: Changing the surname to a higher-caste one, adopting practices of the higher caste, and earning immense wealth in an attempt to gain a bride of the higher castes. Lots of Indian Americans are guilty of this; which is why so many Indian Americans with higher-caste surnames like “Singh” look lower caste — they are impostors, not genuine higher caste individuals (and looking lower caste doesn’t have much to do with skin color, although, as a rule, upper-caste individuals aren’t darker than brown when untanned, but with facial features, bone structure, hirsuteness, and body structure, and of course, genetics.)

    That’s all. Hope that helps you understand the complex demographics of India.

    1. Harrapa world project is a complete bullshit. India still has Munda pure Australoid and pure Mongoloid populations. Rajib khan is a mudskin, monkeyface, mongrel Bangladeshi (just like majority of Indians) who wants to be associated with the Caucasian races of Kashmiris and Pakistanis, for example. Until all ethnic groups of South Asia are sampled correctly, DNA tests are highly fraudulent. A green-eyed, pale-white Pashtun & a nigger-looking South Indian both are shown to have the same 100% South Asian genes by most DNA testing labs – it can’t get anymore ridiculous. The fact is Indians & Pakistanis are very different races. Latest DNA test results are showing the difference.

      https://www.quora.com/How-different-is-an-average-Indian-from-an-average-Pakistani/answers/35956061

      1. 1 Pashtuns aren’t curry there afghani nice try though there closest to afghans.

        2 We never use phenotype to recognize genes.

        3 Most indo european speaking curries are mixed with things asi ani atb and aaa which is not austroloid but some thing distantly to the onge but still very distinct and that in itself carried western asian. Note both the AAA And ATB are very recent components and are found highest in the north east region that being said Asi itself had 2 components 1 in the south and 1 in the north western region that branch my best guess is something related to Caucasoid but over a 40 percent of the genes are neolethic iranian same with over 7 percent of the genes are sinthatha most of the genes are western asian.

  6. I had a hard time reading this article. You make good points in many other articles, but here you appear to only focus on facts you want to focus on and then you apply them broadly where they don’t apply.

    Nobody claims that there are pure races anymore. Most people in the Alt Right don’t even claim that. Stop focusing on obscure corners of the Alt Right who don’t represent the majority. I came across an article presented by American Renaissance recently arguing that race exists, but even in that article, they acknowledged that there is obviously overlap in Central Asia as well as North Africa, as you mentioned here. Nobody denies that hybridization has occurred where two races collide. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that Northwestern Europeans, East Asians, and Subsaharan Africans are pretty pure genetically when it comes to being apart of ONLY one of the big three racial groups if we look through that lense, as opposed to examining how they are mixtures of different ethnicities within their own race.

    In this piece here, you list specific North African countries and Persian Gulf countries that everyone already knows has some black ancestry, but then you apply those percentages to West Asians overall. Please show me how Turks in Turkey, Syrians, people of the Caucasus, or basically everyone North of the North African/Persian Gulf hybrid zones, have noticeable percentages of black ancestry.

    You do the same when presenting Mongoloid mixture in the Near East and in Europe by focusing on a few hybrid areas that we all already know about, like the Baltic countries and Turkey, and then you apply those levels of admixture to the entirety of the Caucasian world.

    I have not seen any studies claiming the level of mixture you are focusing on. Northwest Europeans have 0% Mongoloid genes but instead are mixtures of various Caucasians. Eastern Europeans are usually shown on average to have 2% Mongoloid genes. Most Middle Easterners are mixtures of Caucasian groups and only show mixtures with blacks and Asians in the obvious collision zones.

    You present a lot of interesting information in general, but sometimes you show a little too much bias. Calling Alt Righters dumb isn’t a good way to prove them wrong. They make good points too. There are extreme nutcases in every group. For instance, Alt Righters acknowledge that Middle Easterners are Caucasian, but they are right to not call most of them white, and they have good reason to be suspicious of them as immigrants due to obvious cultural differences. Instead of getting angry and labeling different views as dumb, maybe you should spend more time pulling what is actually useful from their arguments and examining it more fairly.

      1. Yeah I agree. I am yemeni and I scored something around 27% Black/African. My palestinian friend scored 12% and my Lebanese friend scored 3% and my Egyptian friend scored 37% so us ppl from the arab world are really mixed, and thank you for making these blogs robert they are very informational.
        Thank You,
        Vignesh Purushotman

        1. VIGNESH

          Pure Hindi and probably North Indian is what you are.

          Why do you people feel the pathological need to lie?

          Yemini are the purest Arabs in the peninsula.

        2. TRASH
          Yemeni Arabs have African Blood they are not the purest arabs. They have a range of 15-25% african blood.

    1. I know thats what I am saying. So how does that make them pure arabs? I understand culturally, but genetically they probably have the least west asian out of all arab groups in the middle east.

      1. and Yemenis also owned East Africa too and Yemen is literally right next of ethiopia and somalia. I live in the hardamout region, and my uncle is from Sanaa’ so yes I am yemeni, but I converted to hinduism when i came to america.

        1. I’ve been to Dhofar and Jibali are not black. Perhaps Aden or some cities have trace amounts of black from Somalia or Ethiopia.

          A Jibali from the Hadramatt converting to Hinduism. Unheard of. They detest Hindus.

          You are demonstrating the pathological need for Indians to lie as a method of control.

          Yemen never owned East Africa. It was always a backwater that never owned anybody.

      2. None say they are but if we are talking about an Arab country with a significant portion of African blood it is Oman and not Yemen.

        1. Trash you are just WRONG again.

          In the whole region of Arabia, the Levant and Mesopotamia, the Yemenis have the most Black blood. It is 21%.

          You have to go to Egypt or Sudan to find higher concentrations of Black blood in the Arab world. Not sure about Libya either. I would like to see their figures.

    1. They might have a superficial black look due to indian admixture with some black admixture, but bro i have seen yemenis and some of them EXCEPT the jews look part black. Omanis have black in them but bot as much as yemenis.

  7. It’s interesting to note that all humans are a mix of divergent groups and that is a factor that should bind all of us as we’re like a mosaic.

    Also, thanks for this article Robert. Rather stimulating read. The comments on the other hand, the less said the better.

  8. I statement you had made regarding Jews and other Caucasus people having small amounts of Africa n dna is logically inplausible. Jewish migration patterns began in the middle East and then spread to the wealthy donations of Persia Rome and europe. From that point many of these Jewish migrants had intermixed with Europeans sp specifically European males since Jewish females who grandchildren will by Jewish law be a born jew. So Jews began as Semitic people similar to Arabs and eventually became “european” of course you would judge the jews based on anecdotal evidence instead of looking into their ideologies and seeing what they really think of non jews. J Judaism is not a European religion and just because Jews have been living in wealthy nations of Europe and mixing with their people does not make them european.

    1. You did not understand the post. The first part is from me in italic. As you can see, I say that Jews have little to not African DNA in them. It is my commenter below who says Jews have significant African DNA, not me.

  9. Finns have some Asian in them and Swedes have some Finn in them. Swedes are not very Mongoloid but more than a Norwegian. Spanish fucked everything south of the US border, Swedes fucked Finns, Balts, and Rus. Norwegians fucked Gaels. Danes fucked Anglo-Saxons.

Leave a Reply to Vignesh Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)