Comments on European prehistory

My recent activity on this blog has been on this post from last year, in an exchange initiated by this comment. In my comments I have been arguing the following:

  • Y hg I entered Europe during the Aurignacian.
  • Y hg R entered Europe during the Gravettian.
  • R1 men spoke a language ancestral to all Indo-European languages.
  • R1b originated in Western Europe during the Upper Paleolithic.
  • R1a originated in Eastern Europe during the Upper Paleolithic.
  • R1b men were the originators of the centum Indo-European languages.
  • R1a men were the originators of the satem Indo-European languages.
  • The Kurgan hypothesis is false.
Posted in Uncategorized

The dubious association of Anzick 1 with Clovis artifacts

In their paper on the Anzick 1 genome, Eske Willerslev and his associates state several things as facts, which are actually not facts.

For example, toward the end they triumphantly declare that

In agreement with previous archaeological and genetic studies, our genome analysis refutes the possibility that Clovis originated via a European (Solutrean) migration to the Americas.

It certainly doesn’t.

Another example can be found in this statement:

We find that the data are compatible with the Anzick-1 individual belonging to a population that is directly ancestral to the two South American Karitiana samples, as is the case for the Mayan, after masking the latter for recent European admixture.

Willerslev should tell everybody which recent Europeans the Caucasoid admixture in the Maya is from, because it certainly isn’t from the post-Columbian Spanish.

Even their very first sentences are examples:

The only known Clovis burial and associated mortuary assemblage was found in the Americas at the Anzick site, Montana, in 1968. Here, approximately 100 stone tools and 15 osseous tool fragments that are technologically consistent with artefacts of the Clovis complex were found in direct association with the partial fragmentary remains of an infant child (Anzick-1). The human remains were found directly below the Clovis artefacts and were covered with red ochre. Bone from the skeleton was directly dated using XAD-collagen to 10,705 ± 35 14C years BP or 12,707–12,556 calendar years BP, close to the end of the Clovis time period.

The truth is that the association between the Anzick 1 remains and the Clovis artifacts has always been a matter of dispute, although you would never know that from reading the Anzick 1 paper.

And the dates for the Anzick 1 remains aren’t “close to the end of the Clovis time period”, they’re after the end of the Clovis time period.

The artifacts and remains at the Anzick site were discovered by accident in 1968 by Ben Hargis, who was using a front-end loader to load rock debris into a dump truck. After seeing a couple of the stone tools in some of the debris, he stopped working in the area, and later that day he and some friends removed all of the artifacts and human remains by hand.

Later in 1968 the site was professionally investigated by Dee Taylor of the University of Montana. In his report titled “The Wilsall Excavations: An Exercise in Frustration”, Taylor wrote

Unfortunately, the Wilsall (Anzick) material was unearthed in such a way that data from several levels could have become thoroughly mixed… It is unfortunate, too, that our amateur diggers were so thorough and succeeded in finding almost everything that was there, leaving nothing in situ…the potential importance of the site cannot be overemphasized…Had it been possible to make a definite association of the human bones with Clovis materials, it would have given archaeologists their first glimpse of the actual bones of one of these ancient hunters.

In 1999 Larry Lahren interviewed two of the discoverers at the site. The belief that the human remains were located beneath the Clovis artifacts is based entirely on these recollections of events that had taken place 31 years earlier.

One of the most frequently cited papers on the Anzick site is this paper from 2001. Dennis Stanford, one of the two originators of the Solutrean hypothesis, is mentioned in the acknowledgments as having reviewed drafts of the manuscript. The paper states that

The original ledge was capped and sealed by weathered, decomposed fine sandstone, and the bones, reportedly, were found below the lithic artifacts.

Note that this statement is qualified with the word “reportedly”.

Even if the human remains really were found beneath the Clovis artifacts, that still leaves the possibility that non-Clovis people came across a Clovis cache that had been left there hundreds of years earlier, and used it as part of one of their burials. Indeed, the radiocarbon dating evidence indicates that may be exactly what happened.

The 2012 book on the Solutrean hypothesis by Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley, Across Atlantic Ice, mentions the Anzick site on page 60:

Another Clovis cache site, Anzick in southwestern Montana, contained more than 132 artifacts and bone tools buried in a collapsed rock shelter. This site was similar to the East Wenatchee Site, as it contained a large number of bifacially flaked stone artifacts, including Clovis points, a few unifacially retouched tools, and bone rods. A notable difference from East Wenatchee was the presence of the partial remains of two subadult human skeletons. The remains of a toddler consisted primarily of skull fragments, and the artifacts were all stained with red ocher. The other individual has been shown to be unassociated with the Clovis materials.

A note for this paragraph on page 265 says that

There are some real problems with these two skeletons relative to their association with the Clovis Cache. The bone foreshafts have a good, solid Clovis age radiocarbon date of 11,040±35 RCYBP. The toddler has a date of 10,680±50 RCYBP, while the other child has a date of 8,600±90 RCYBP. The toddler’s bones are covered with red ocher, but the other child’s remains are not stained. Unfortunately, the entire site, including the artifacts and remains, was disturbed by earthmoving equipment, and the exact locations of the burials relative to the cache are unknown. It may be that they were not associated with the Clovis Cache but were incidentally buried nearby and the red ocher staining the toddler’s bones is purely coincidental.

The Anzick site is also mentioned on page 180:

While it is difficult to use lack of evidence as evidence of a relationship, we must point out that no Solutrean or Clovis burials have been found. Unlike with other Paleolithic European, Siberian, and later North American cultures, which all have evidence of mortuary customs, we have no idea how the earliest Paleo-Americans or Solutrean people buried their dead. Both groups apparently used a form of burial that did not preserve the human remains. Their customs may have been similar to the historic scaffold type of burial, wherein the body was left in an open environment to facilitate transformation to another dimension. Some investigators think the remains of two individuals recovered at Anzick Site in Montana are associated with the Clovis artifacts there. However, radiocarbon dating of the human bones indicates that they were placed near the cache 400 or more years later. The lack of human remains from both cultures renders it impossible to assess their paleo-genetic relationships.

The Anzick 1 paper states that

Clovis, with its distinctive biface, blade and osseous technologies, is the oldest widespread archaeological complex defined in North America, dating from 11,100 to 10,700 14C years before present (BP) (13,000 to 12,600 calendar years BP).

It gives this 2007 paper and this 2008 paper as references, but these date ranges for Clovis don’t appear in either paper.

The supplementary information for the Anzick 1 paper says that

The date on Anzick-1 cranial bone (10,705±35) differs from the average date for the rods (11,035±45). Their respective calibrated age ranges are 12,722 to 12,590 calendar years BP (Anzick-1) and 13,039 to 12,763 calendar years BP (antler rods) — values that do not overlap at the 95.4% confidence interval.

It goes on to say that

The ages of both the ochre-stained cranial fragments and the osseous tools are within the accepted age range of Clovis.

It gives the 2007 paper as a reference for this statement.

The 2007 paper gives a radiocarbon date range for Clovis of 11,050 to 10,800 years BP, and, using the most accurate calibration for the Clovis time period, it gives a maximum range of 13,250 to 12,800 calendar years BP, and a minimum range of 13,125 to 12,925 calendar years BP.

So the date range for the antler rods overlaps the Clovis date range, but the date range for the Anzick 1 remains is after the Clovis date range, contrary to what the Anzick 1 paper claims.

The supporting online material for the 2007 paper states

The Anzick site in Montana is reported to be a Clovis burial and cache. At Anzick, 12 radiocarbon dates were obtained from the cranial elements of a purported Clovis infant skeleton and 2 dates on associated bone foreshafts. Collagen extracted from the foreshafts yielded an average age of 11,040 ± 35 14C yr B.P. The human skeletal remains were dated during three separate research programs. The first batch of seven dates on bone comprise five chemical fractions that were considered reliable and averaged to 10,680 ± 50 14C yr B.P. Later, a single purified collagen sample yielded a date of 11,550 ± 60 14C yr B.P. This measurement is rejected because subsequent dating of the same XAD fraction and preceding fractions from newly sampled bone did not replicate the 11,550 14C yr B.P. result. The source of the contaminating 14C-depleted carbon is unknown. A more recent series of dates from a single cranial fragment provided four new radiocarbon ages. These fractions confirm previous date estimates for the skeleton of 10,705 ± 35 14C yr B.P. The 14C dates on the skeleton versus the dates on the bone foreshafts suggest that the skeletal remains and Clovis artifacts may not be related and that the foreshaft ages more accurately date the site. The 10,700 year old human remains could post-date the Clovis cache, but additional research is needed to resolve this issue. A more recent, late Paleoindian or early Archaic human skeleton was also found at the site. The association of any of the human remains with the Clovis cache is problematic because the site had been excavated accidentally with heavy machinery before the human bones and artifacts were recognized and later recovered at some distance from the actual site. Thus, the directly dated Clovis artifacts—the foreshafts—appear to accurately date the site.

The 2008 paper, citing the 2007 paper, says that

Radiocarbon dates obtained over the last 40 years from Clovis sites across North America suggested that the complex ranged in age from 13.6 to 13 ka; however, evaluation of the existing dates and new 14C assays reveals that Clovis more precisely dates from 13.2–13.1 to 12.9–12.8 ka, a shorter and younger time span for Clovis than earlier thought. The current evidence suggests Clovis flourished during the late Allerød interstadial and quickly disappeared at the start of the Younger Dryas stadial.

This contradicts the date range for Clovis given by the Anzick 1 paper, which even gave the 2008 paper as a reference.

Posted in Uncategorized

Analyses of the Anzick 1 genome

Below are the results of globe4, globe13, MDLP World-22, and Old World 26 analyses of the Anzick 1 genome.

The Old World 26 analysis identifies the Negroid admixture appearing in the other analyses as being primarily archaic.

The largest Mongoloid components for pure Amerindians in the K = 26 analysis, in decreasing order, were the Yakut, Naxi, Japanese, and She components. These components appear in the same order in the Anzick 1 results.

The largest Caucasoid or Veddoid components for pure Amerindians in the K = 26 analysis, in decreasing order, were the Finnish, Burusho, and Gujarati components. These components appear in the same order in the Anzick 1 results.

The Anzick 1 genome was of course seized upon by the ideologues and propagandists of the corrupt “scientific community” as conclusive proof that the Solutrean hypothesis is false, and it is of course no such thing.

The Y Q and mt A, B, C, and D Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrid ancestors of Amerindians probably entered the Americas around 15,000 years ago, so it’s not surprising to find one of these people in Montana 12,785 years ago.

Below is a map of the density of Clovis points in North America. It shows that there are far more Clovis points in the eastern United States than in the western United States, and hardly any in Montana.


The oldest sites of human habitation in the United States are in the eastern United States. The Cactus Hill site in Virginia dates to 20,000 to 18,000 years ago. The Meadowcroft Rockshelter site in Pennsylvania dates to 19,000 to 16,000 years ago.

The oldest stone tools in the United States were found in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and also in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia. These tools date to 26,000 to 19,000 years ago, and they show similarities to both Solutrean tools and Clovis tools.

I recommend this video for an introduction to the Solutrean hypothesis.

The mitochondrial haplogroup X found in Amerindians is of Caucasoid origin, in spite of the asinine denials of this fact by the “scientific community”. X was found in 700-year-old remains from Illinois, and it was also found in 1,340-year-old remains from Washington. Vikings arrived in the Americas around 1000 AD, so X was in the Americas before the Vikings.

Two of the mutations that characterize haplogroup X were found in some of the skeletons from Windover Pond in Florida, which date to 7,000 to 8,000 years ago. None of the Windover Pond skeletons showed mutations characterizing Mongoloid haplogroups.

In his post on the Anzick 1 paper, Dienekes lumps the Solutrean hypothesis, the White Gods, and the Olmec colossal heads together with nonsense like Atlantis and lost Israelite tribes as being “in the realm of alernative [sic] history”.

The distinction between mainstream history and alternative history is only of sociological interest. The only distinction that matters is the distinction between true history and false history.

The mainstream history that says that the Americas were first peopled by people from Asia who moved down the Pacific coast 15,000 years ago is false history.

The mainstream history that denies that ancient human remains in Peru and Chile are Caucasoid is false history.

The mainstream history that denies that the Olmec colossal heads are Negroid is false history.

In this embarrassing post from last year Dienekes linked to my White Gods post, so he’s certainly aware of all of the photographs of ancient Caucasoid remains from Peru and Chile that I included in that post.

I included numerous photographs of the Olmec colossal heads in this post from last year, in connection with the Negroid admixture in Maya Indians.

If Dienekes thinks that there’s some doubt about the earliest sites in the US being in the eastern US, or about ancient human remains in Peru and Chile being Caucasoid, or about the Olmec colossal heads being Negroid, then I invite him to make a fool out of himself again, and say so explicitly, instead of just insinuating it.

Finally, a word about priority.

In November of last year Eske Willerslev and his associates falsely took credit for “revealing” that Amerindians are Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids, a fact which I had been revealing over the preceding 8 months. The idea that the “scientific community” was unaware that I had been revealing this fact is not plausible, as my revelation of it involved the public humiliation of the world’s most widely read anthropology blogger. Among the members of the “scientific community” that read Dienekes’ blog is Nick Patterson, one of David Reich’s closest associates. Dienekes’ posts about my refutation of one of Reich’s major claims certainly would have been of interest to Patterson.

My K = 26 admixture analysis of Amerindians and Mestizos showed that Maya and Peruvians have Caucasoid admixture which cannot possibly be from the post-Columbian Spanish. This is a scientific discovery of the greatest importance. I’m putting the “scientific community” on notice right now that if any of them attempt to take credit for this discovery, I will do everything in my power to expose the falsity of their claims.


  • 87.29% Indianid (“Amerindian”)
  • 4.73% Mongoloid (“Asian”)
  • 4.29% Caucasoid (“European”)
  • 3.69% Negroid (“African”)


  • 81.86% Indianid (“Amerindian”)
  • 6.70% Eskimid (“Arctic”)
  • 2.63% Paleo-Negrid (“West_African”)
  • 2.47% Nordic (“North_European”)
  • 1.94% Mediterranean (“Mediterranean”)
  • 1.58% Sinid (“East_Asian”)
  • 0.86% Tungid (“Siberian”)
  • 0.52% Melanesid (“Australasian”)
  • 0.49% Alpine (“West_Asian”)
  • 0.43% Nilotid (“East_African”)
  • 0.30% Veddoid (“South_Asian”)
  • 0.12% Capoid (“Palaeo_African”)
  • 0.09% Orientalid (“Southwest_Asian”)

MDLP World-22

  • 42.95% Centralid (“Mesoamerican”)
  • 31.75% Pacifid (“North-Amerind”)
  • 14.45% Brazilid (“South-America_Amerind”)
  • 2.29% Negroid (“Sub-Saharian”)
  • 1.69% Sinid (“East-South-Asian”)
  • 1.54% Aryan Nordic (“North-East-European”)
  • 1.23% Uralid (“Samoedic”)
  • 1.07% Mediterranean (“Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic”)
  • 0.82% Eskimid (“Arctic-Amerind”)
  • 0.75% Melanesid (“Austronesian”)
  • 0.64% Cro-Magnon Nordic (“North-European-Mesolithic”)
  • 0.30% North-Indid (“Indo-Iranian”)
  • 0.23% Alpine (“West-Asian”)
  • 0.13% Bambutid (“Pygmy”)
  • 0.11% Capoid (“South-African”)
  • 0.05% Tungid (“East-Siberean”)
  • 0.00% Australid (“Melanesian”)
  • 0.00% East-Sibirid (“Paleo-Siberian”)
  • 0.00% Orientalid (“Near_East”)
  • 0.00% Qiangid (“Indo-Tibetan”)
  • 0.00% Veddoid (“Indian”)
  • 0.00% West-Sibirid (“North-Siberean”)

Old World 26

  • 24.40% Yakut
  • 16.78% Naxi
  • 12.11% Finnish
  • 11.26% Japanese
  • 6.61% Burusho
  • 4.31% She
  • 3.17% Gujarati
  • 3.15% Dai
  • 2.36% Archaic
  • 2.12% San
  • 1.98% Yoruba
  • 1.66% Papuan
  • 1.54% Basque
  • 1.28% Sardinian
  • 1.12% Biaka Pygmy
  • 1.10% Kalash
  • 1.04% Kenya Bantu
  • 0.74% Mbuti Pygmy
  • 0.73% Mandenka
  • 0.69% Lahu
  • 0.67% Brahui
  • 0.52% Melanesian
  • 0.42% Palestinian
  • 0.15% Mozabite
  • 0.09% Druze
  • 0.00% Bedouin
Posted in Uncategorized

Old World 26 analyses of the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora genomes

Below are the results of analyzing the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora genomes with the calculator that I used in the K = 26 admixture analysis of Amerindians and Mestizos.

The Yakut, Basque, and Sardinian components are all part Nordic, which accounts for their presence here.

The results identify the Negroid admixture appearing in the previous analyses here and here as being primarily archaic.

The largest Caucasoid or Veddoid components for the pure Amerindians in the K = 26 analysis, in decreasing order, were the Finnish, Burusho, Gujarati, and Kalash components. These components appear in the same order in the Mal’ta and Afontova Gora results, and in the Mal’ta results they even appear in approximately the same ratios as in the Amerindian results.

P* is found in South Asia, including Gujarat. Q* is found in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The populations having the highest frequencies of R* are Burusho (10.3%), Kalash (6.8%), and Gujarati (3.4%).

Of all of the religions practiced today, the Kalash religion is the most similar to the original Aryan religions.

Although the Burusho language, Burushaski, is usually said to be a language isolate, there is evidence that it is related to Aryan languages.


  • 27.83% Finnish
  • 25.95% Burusho
  • 12.64% Gujarati
  • 8.76% Kalash
  • 5.24% Yakut
  • 4.54% Brahui
  • 4.10% Basque
  • 2.20% Archaic
  • 1.12% Papuan
  • 1.10% Yoruba
  • 1.06% Sardinian
  • 1.03% Dai
  • 0.74% San
  • 0.71% Melanesian
  • 0.55% Mbuti Pygmy
  • 0.47% Naxi
  • 0.44% Lahu
  • 0.43% Biaka Pygmy
  • 0.40% Mandenka
  • 0.25% Kenya Bantu
  • 0.20% Japanese
  • 0.18% She
  • 0.06% Palestinian
  • 0.00% Bedouin
  • 0.00% Druze
  • 0.00% Mozabite

Afontova Gora

  • 40.79% Finnish
  • 18.33% Basque
  • 14.75% Burusho
  • 5.38% Gujarati
  • 4.85% Kalash
  • 4.12% Brahui
  • 3.26% Yakut
  • 2.43% Sardinian
  • 1.95% Archaic
  • 0.90% Melanesian
  • 0.80% Yoruba
  • 0.64% Papuan
  • 0.48% San
  • 0.44% Kenya Bantu
  • 0.33% Biaka Pygmy
  • 0.26% Mbuti Pygmy
  • 0.17% Lahu
  • 0.08% Japanese
  • 0.02% Dai
  • 0.01% Naxi
  • 0.00% Bedouin
  • 0.00% Druze
  • 0.00% Mandenka
  • 0.00% Mozabite
  • 0.00% Palestinian
  • 0.00% She
Posted in Uncategorized

Admixture analyses of the complete La Braña 1 genome

Below are the results of globe4, globe13, and MDLP World-22 analyses of the complete La Braña 1 genome. I’ve also included the results for the calculator that I used in the K = 26 admixture analysis of Amerindians and Mestizos.

The globe4 results contradict Dienekes’ globe4 results for the fragmentary La Braña 1 genome. Those results showed none of the Indianid component, but the results for the complete genome show a spurious 11.82% of the Indianid component.

The globe13 results show good agreement with Dienekes’ globe13 results for the fragmentary genome. Both analyses show about 72% of the Nordic component, a significant amount of the Mediterranean component, and a small amount of a Negroid component.

The MDLP World-22 results contradict Vadim Verenich’s MDLP World-22 results for the fragmentary genome. Those results showed 80.9% of the Cro-Magnon Nordic component and none of the Aryan Nordic component, but the results for the complete genome show 65.77% of the Aryan component and 10.89% of the Cro-Magnon component.

The K = 26 results contradict the results for the fragmentary genome, which showed only the Finnish and archaic components, while these results also show a large amount of the Basque component and a small amount of the Sardinian component.

The K = 26 results identify the Negroid admixture appearing in the other results as being primarily archaic.

Mediterraneans had entered Iberia by 8,000 years ago, a thousand years before the time of La Braña 1, so it makes sense that La Braña 1 would have some Mediterranean admixture.


  • 80.69% Caucasoid (“European”)
  • 11.82% Indianid (“Amerindian”)
  • 3.93% Negroid (“African”)
  • 3.56% Mongoloid (“Asian”)


  • 72.70% Nordic (“North_European”)
  • 16.22% Mediterranean (“Mediterranean”)
  • 3.74% Paleo-Negrid (“West_African”)
  • 3.47% Sinid (“East_Asian”)
  • 2.13% Veddoid (“South_Asian”)
  • 1.70% Melanesid (“Australasian”)
  • 0.02% Nilotid (“East_African”)
  • 0.01% Capoid (“Palaeo_African”)
  • 0.01% Tungid (“Siberian”)
  • 0.00% Alpine (“West_Asian”)
  • 0.00% Eskimid (“Arctic”)
  • 0.00% Indianid (“Amerindian”)
  • 0.00% Orientalid (“Southwest_Asian”)

MDLP World-22

  • 65.77% Aryan Nordic (“North-East-European”)
  • 13.28% Mediterranean (“Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic”)
  • 10.89% Cro-Magnon Nordic (“North-European-Mesolithic”)
  • 2.95% Sinid (“East-South-Asian”)
  • 2.45% Negroid (“Sub-Saharian”)
  • 1.65% Melanesid (“Austronesian”)
  • 1.04% Bambutid (“Pygmy”)
  • 0.77% Australid (“Melanesian”)
  • 0.64% Veddoid (“Indian”)
  • 0.41% Qiangid (“Indo-Tibetan”)
  • 0.13% Capoid (“South-African”)
  • 0.02% Uralid (“Samoedic”)
  • 0.00% Alpine (“West-Asian”)
  • 0.00% Brazilid (“South-America_Amerind”)
  • 0.00% Centralid (“Mesoamerican”)
  • 0.00% East-Sibirid (“Paleo-Siberian”)
  • 0.00% Eskimid (“Arctic-Amerind”)
  • 0.00% North-Indid (“Indo-Iranian”)
  • 0.00% Orientalid (“Near_East”)
  • 0.00% Pacifid (“North-Amerind”)
  • 0.00% Tungid (“East-Siberean”)
  • 0.00% West-Sibirid (“North-Siberean”)

Old World 26

  • 38.08% Finnish
  • 37.42% Basque
  • 4.75% Sardinian
  • 2.55% Archaic
  • 2.20% Yoruba
  • 2.13% San
  • 1.84% Papuan
  • 1.30% She
  • 1.21% Dai
  • 1.18% Kenya Bantu
  • 1.13% Biaka Pygmy
  • 0.99% Mbuti Pygmy
  • 0.85% Mandenka
  • 0.79% Melanesian
  • 0.71% Yakut
  • 0.65% Japanese
  • 0.60% Naxi
  • 0.43% Lahu
  • 0.39% Gujarati
  • 0.28% Palestinian
  • 0.17% Burusho
  • 0.11% Bedouin
  • 0.09% Mozabite
  • 0.08% Brahui
  • 0.03% Druze
  • 0.03% Kalash
Posted in Uncategorized

2013: The year in review

Here I will look back on some of my posts from this year, the embarrassing and disgraceful behavior of the “HBD community”, and the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the “scientific community”.

Around the beginning of the year I started doing some admixture analyses of W. W. Howells’ craniometric data. In the K = 4 analysis the ancient Peruvian skulls in Howells’ dataset showed a large amount of non-Mongoloid admixture. I inferred that this admixture was Caucasoid, and cited as evidence the work of Thor Heyerdahl, the obviously Caucasoid features of the Paracas mummies, and the discovery of I2a1a-M26 in Amerindians.

March 22: K = 4 craniometric admixture analysis

The “scientists” who announced the discovery of I-M26 in Amerindians claimed that it was from post-Columbian Basques, and gave as their only evidence an association with supposedly Basque surnames. In my next post I showed that none of these surnames were distinctively Basque.

March 22: Basque surnames that aren’t

In the following post I presented a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that Caucasoids were present in the Americas before the Vikings. This post includes numerous photographs of indisputably Caucasoid remains from ancient Peru and ancient Chile.

March 26: The White Gods

My next craniometric admixture analysis showed that not only was my inference about ancient Peruvian skulls correct, but that in fact ancient Peruvian skulls were on average more Caucasoid than the skulls of any other population in Howells’ dataset.

March 31: K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis

I soon realized that Caucasoid admixture was pervasive throughout all Amerindians, and that genetic evidence of this had been in plain sight for years. To confirm that evidence, I generated a chromosome painting for a Karitiana genotype, which showed that Karitiana chromosomes are a mosaic of Mongoloid and Caucasoid DNA. I also introduced the technique of analyzing populations in terms of other populations, which allowed me to calculate that the Karitiana are 73% Mongoloid and 27% Caucasoid.

At the same time, I realized that a major claim made by David Reich was utterly false. That claim is expressed by the figure below, which appeared in a paper written last year by Reich and his subordinates at Harvard.


The figure shows Mediterraneans and Amerindians as being unmixed, and Nordics as being hybrids formed from the unmixed ancestors of Mediterraneans and Amerindians. The paper refers repeatedly to Nordics as having “Northeast Asian-related admixture”. The inhabitants of Northeast Asia have been proto-Mongoloid or Mongoloid for tens of thousands of years. Amerindians are (predominantly) Mongoloid, so if Nordics had admixture from the supposedly unmixed ancestors of supposedly unmixed Amerindians, then they would have to have DNA in common with Mongoloids. I produced a chromosome painting and calculator results for a French genotype that showed no Mongoloid DNA whatsoever. I also showed that the Z-score of the f3 statistic for the French as a mixture of Sardinians and Russians is larger than the Z-score of the f3 statistic for the French as a mixture of Sardinians and Karitiana.

April 7: Amerindians have significant Caucasoid admixture, while most Europeans do not have significant Mongoloid admixture

I then set about identifying exactly what kind of Caucasoid admixture was present in Amerindians, using my new technique. I showed that the admixture was far more Nordic than it was Mediterranean.

April 10: Preliminary subracial analysis of the Caucasoid admixture in Karitiana sample HGDP00995

April 12: K = 4 admixture analysis of all HGDP Amerindian samples

It was around this time that Greg Cochran put up a post in which he pontificated on the peopling of the Americas. The post contained no mention of the Solutreans, whose presence in the Americas is proven by plenty of archaeological evidence. The first commenter pointed out this glaring omission, and also referred to Quetzalcoatl, who was described by Montezuma to Cortez as having been Caucasoid. A homosexual commenter then started attacking the first commenter, and declared that the idea that Quetzalcoatl was Caucasoid was “silly”. I then posted a comment giving my honest assessment of the “HBD community” and directing people to my website. Next the homosexual made a comment in which he vilified me as a Nazi, and Henry Harpending chimed in with his assent. Later I posted a comment containing a few important archaeological, anthropological, and genetic facts. No one could argue with these facts, and they exposed Cochran’s ignorance. Cochran deleted the comment. I posted the comment again, and he deleted it again, but before he could delete it the second time I took a screenshot:


April 14: Castaways

Later in April I carried out a high K admixture analysis of Amerindians, which gave a detailed characterization of their Caucasoid admixture.

April 21: K = 17 admixture analysis of Amerindians

In May I used F4 ratio estimation as an independent means of calculating the amount of Nordic admixture in Amerindians.

May 17: F4 ratio estimation confirms Nordic admixture in Amerindians

In my next post I excoriated the “HBD community” for believing David Reich’s preposterous claims, pointing out that they flew in the face of the most basic anthropological observations. I mentioned the complete absence of the Mongoloid EDAR mutation in most European populations, which proved beyond any doubt that they could not possibly have any significant Mongoloid admixture. In the comments of this post I for the first time identified two components from an admixture analysis by Vadim Verenich as being associated with Y hg I Cro-Magnon Nordics and Y hg R1 Aryan Nordics.

May 28: Amerindians have both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical features

I then put up a post pointing out the presence of the blue eyes allele of the SNP rs12913832 in Karitiana and Surui, which proved beyond any doubt that Amerindians have Nordic admixture.

June 1: Frequencies for blue eyes SNP rs12913832 in HGDP populations

It was a few days after this post that Dienekes made a complete fool out of himself by attacking the F4 ratio estimation phylogeny that I had used for calculating the amount of Nordic admixture in Amerindians. I suspected that Dienekes had been following my blog, because I started out as a commenter on his. I really thought after seeing all the evidence I had presented that Dienekes would have grasped that Amerindians are part Nordic, and not the other way around, as Reich had claimed. But it seems that by this point Reich’s claim had come to be something like a religious belief for Dienekes, and no amount of evidence could convince him that it was wrong.

June 5: Amerindian-like admixture in northern Europe is real

Dienekes’ faith had blinded him to the essential truth of my F4 ratio estimation phylogeny. His criticism of it was that it didn’t yield correct expected values of f3 statistics. But of course that wasn’t what it was designed to do. Its design was dictated by the F4 ratio estimation program. In my response to Dienekes’ attack on my work, I presented a phylogeny designed with f3 statistics in mind, and I showed that one could use it to calculate expected values that are close to empirical f3 statistics.

June 8: Dienekes is dumber than I thought

Dienekes responded with a post which he claimed to be “friendly”, but whose animosity was apparent from its condescending remarks. He speaks of my “confusion” and his contribution to my “continuing education”, when of course it was Dienekes who was confused and in need of education. Throughout this post Dienekes puts the Nordic race in quotation marks. Presumably it’s a social construct.

June 8: Friendly rejoinder to genetiker

Dienekes had demonstrated an inability to count when he denied that there were 16 path combinations for the f3 statistic for my phylogeny, so I helped him out by drawing pictures of all 16. These visual aids must have been effective, because Dienekes never made any further challenge to my phylogeny.

June 11: Dienekes is a fool

In October I posted a high K admixture analysis of Amerindians and Mestizos. This analysis also included ancient DNA samples, and it showed that the Negroid admixture which had been showing up in previous analyses of these samples was actually archaic. The analysis also showed that Maya and Peruvians have a pattern of Caucasoid admixture which is distinct from both the pattern found in pure Amerindians and the pattern found in Mestizos, and which cannot possibly be from the post-Columbian Spanish. Also in this post I deduced that the Nordic admixture in Amerindians is Aryan and not Cro-Magnon, and that it was contributed by Y hg Q proto-Aryan males.

October 27: K = 26 admixture analysis of Amerindians and Mestizos

In November Eske Willerslev and his associates published a paper in which they pretended to have “revealed” that Amerindians are Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids, a fact for which there was genetic evidence years ago, and which my work over the preceding 8 months had made abundantly clear. When asked to comment on this paper, David Reich stated that “Mal’ta might be a missing link, a representative of the Asian population that admixed both into Europeans and Native Americans”. He seems to have forgotten here all about his preposterous claim from just a year ago that Amerindians are unmixed and that the unmixed ancestors of unmixed Amerindians themselves contributed to the ancestry of Nordics. He went on to extol “the value of ancient DNA in peeling back history and resolving mysteries that are difficult to solve using only present day samples”. It may have been “difficult” for Reich to solve “mysteries” like the general descent of Nordics and Amerindians “using only present day samples”, but it wasn’t for me.

November 20: Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

In December David Reich and his associates published a paper in which they pretended to have discovered that Europeans are descended from Mediterraneans, Cro-Magnon Nordics, and Aryan Nordics, a fact which was understood a hundred years ago, and the genetic correlates of which I had identified 7 months earlier. Just as everyone is now expected to use the cumbersome and idiotic geographical phrases “Western Eurasians”, “East Asians”, “Sub-Saharan Africans”, and “Ancestral South Indians” for the biological Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Veddoid races, this paper introduces the obfuscatory phrases “Early European Farmers”, “West European Hunter-Gatherers”, and “Ancient North Eurasians” for Mediterraneans, Cro-Magnons, and proto-Aryans. The paper idiotically models Europeans as being directly descended from an R* proto-Aryan from Siberia, when of course they’re actually descended from fully-evolved R1 Aryans from Europe.

December 23: Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

Posted in Uncategorized

Admixture analyses of North American Indians

In this paper from last year David Reich and his associates analyzed some Amerindian SNP data. Many of the tribes in their dataset showed a significant amount of Caucasoid admixture. Real scientists would have sought to characterize this admixture, but David Reich and his associates simply declared it all to be post-Columbian, and deleted any trace of it from their data before running their analyses. The dataset used for this paper was never made freely accessible.

But this paper from 2007 analyzed many of the same populations using 678 autosomal STRs, and its dataset can be freely downloaded. I have used this dataset here to try to learn more about the Caucasoid admixture in three North American Indian tribes: the Chipewyan, the Cree, and the Ojibwa. The samples for these tribes all came from Canada, and “Ojibwa” is the name more commonly used in Canada for the same tribe that is more often called the Chippewa in the United States. The Cree and the Ojibwa both speak Algonquian languages, while the Chipewyan speak a Na-Dene language.

At the bottom of the post is a plot for a K = 4 admixture analysis of the data from the 2007 paper. I have also included in the analysis the data for Mestizos from this 2008 paper. Below are the mean admixture percentages for the three tribes under consideration. Note that the Caucasoid percentages here are a measure of the Caucasoid admixture beyond the Caucasoid admixture which is found in all Amerindians, and which is a part of the Indianid component.

          Negroid Indianid Mongoloid Caucasoid
Chipewyan    0.20    50.14     27.65     22.01
Cree         0.35    50.47     14.79     34.37
Ojibwa       0.40    52.62     17.11     29.89

Above the K = 4 plot is a plot for a K = 3 analysis that includes the European populations and the two Algonquian tribes. The analysis produces an Algonquian component, a Mediterranean component, and a Nordic component. The mean admixture percentages are below.

          Algonquian Mediterranean Nordic
Orcadian        1.08         35.44  63.48
Russian         2.14          9.25  88.60
Basque          0.57         94.74   4.68
French          1.46         62.30  36.24
Italian         0.76         68.19  31.04
Sardinian       0.72         96.53   2.73
Tuscan          1.44         76.51  22.01
Cree           80.12          9.34  10.54
Ojibwa         90.75          3.30   5.93

The results show that the Caucasoid admixture in the Cree and the Ojibwa is part Nordic and part Mediterranean. The combined Nordic and Mediterranean percentages for the Indians are less than their Caucasoid percentages in the K = 4 analysis, so part of the Caucasoid admixture in the K = 4 analysis becomes part of the Algonquian component in the K = 3 analysis.

Above the K = 3 plot for the Algonquian tribes is a plot for a similar analysis of the Chipewyan. The mean admixture percentages are below.

          Chipewyan Mediterranean Nordic
Orcadian       0.24         20.11  79.66
Russian        0.58          1.93  97.47
Basque         0.30         97.93   1.77
French         0.57         63.57  35.87
Italian        0.32         63.95  35.74
Sardinian      0.22         97.66   2.11
Tuscan         0.62         75.34  24.02
Chipewyan     89.74          1.07   9.18

The results show that the Caucasoid admixture in the Chipewyan is more Nordic than the Caucasoid admixture in the Cree and the Ojibwa. As with the Algonquian component, part of the Caucasoid admixture in the K = 4 analysis becomes part of the Chipewyan component in the K = 3 analysis.

These results can be explained if the Caucasoid admixture in the three tribes is from R1b Nordic males and X Mediterranean females.

There is a lot of evidence that X is a Mediterranean haplogroup. It generally occurs at higher frequencies in Southwest Asia and Southern Europe than in Northern Europe. It has so far not been found in the Nordic hunter-gatherers of Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, but it is found in the Mediterranean farmers of Neolithic Europe, and in Europeans generally after the Neolithic. It was found here in samples from Mesolithic and Neolithic Greece, where the Mediterranean haplogroups K, J, and T were also found, but where the quintessentially Nordic haplogroup U was completely absent. In this large study of ancient mtDNA it was completely absent in the Nordic hunter-gatherers, but it was found in eight out of the nine prehistoric German farming cultures studied.

Algonquians have the highest frequencies of both R and X in the Americas. This would explain the presence of both Nordic and Mediterranean admixture in the Cree and the Ojibwa.

One sample of Chipewyan was found to be 62.5% R1, which is lower than the 79.3% found in one sample of Chippewa, but is higher than the 50.5% found in another sample of Chippewa. X is found in the Navajo, but as far as I have been able to determine it is not present in other Na-Dene tribes. The high frequency of R in the Chipewyan, along with a rarity or absence of X would explain the Caucasoid admixture in the Chipewyan being more Nordic than the Caucasoid admixture in Algonquians.

These results have forced me to again change my understanding of Mediterranean migration to Europe. I now think that there were three waves of Mediterraneans from Southwest Asia to Europe: a small wave during the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, a medium wave during the early Holocene and Mesolithic, and a large wave during the Neolithic. I think that the X in North American Indians is from Mediterranean women of the first wave, who along with Nordic men crossed the transatlantic ice bridge that existed during the Younger Dryas.




Posted in Uncategorized

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.