K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis

A K = 5 craniometric admixture plot is at the bottom of this post.

The five components are:

  • Archaic (green)
  • Mongoloid (red)
  • Polynesoid (yellow)
  • Caucasoid (blue)
  • Unresolved modern (purple)

Components are breaking out of the K = 2 modern component in decreasing order of their divergence from primeval modern human cranial morphology. Mongoloid and Polynesoid cranial morphology is the most divergent, so it was the first to break out. Caucasoid cranial morphology is the second most divergent, so it was the next to break out.

Peruvians, in spite of their Mongoloid admixture, have on average more of the Caucasoid component than any other population in Howells’ dataset.

Note how similar the Peruvians are to the Canary Islanders. They’re also similar to the Kurgan individuals.

The unresolved modern component in most of the Caucasoid populations is due to vestigial Veddoid features.

The Egyptians have a lot more of the unresolved modern component than the other Caucasoid populations. Egypt above 30°N (Lower Egypt) was predominantly Caucasoid, Egypt between 30°N and the Tropic of Cancer (Upper Egypt) was predominantly Veddoid, and Egypt below the Tropic of Cancer (Nubia) was predominantly Negroid.

In this post Dienekes had a couple of quotes that are relevant here. The first one is from Herodotus:

“The Indians wore cotton dresses, and carried bows of cane, and arrows also of cane with iron at the point. Such was the equipment of the Indians, and they marched under the command of Pharnazathres the son of Artabates. […] The eastern Ethiopians- for two nations of this name served in the army- were marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.”

And the second one is from Arrian:

“The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.”

“Ethiopia” in these quotes means everything to the south of ancient Egypt, beginning with Nubia. “Libya” means Africa.

By the time the quotes were made, the Negritoid, Veddoid, Dravidian-speaking Mediterranean Caucasoid, and Indo-Aryan-speaking Nordic Caucasoid layers were all present in India.

The people Herodotus calls “eastern Ethiopians” and Arrian calls “southern Indians” were basically like Negritoids with straight hair. You can see photographs of such people here. Some of them have hair that’s not even completely straight.

Both the Egyptians and the people Herodotus calls “Indians” and Arrian calls “northern Indians” had Caucasoid admixture.

The original Negritoids looked a lot like the Andamanese, but even the Andamanese are somewhat divergent.

We know that the original Veddoids had straight hair and depigmentation mutations in ASIP, BNC2, LYST, and KITLG, but because present-day Vedda have Caucasoid admixture, it’s hard to visualize exactly what the original Veddoids looked like.

In Huxley’s 1870 essay “On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind”, which you can read here, he talks about an “Australioid type”, which is in reality Veddoid. First he observes the similarities between Australians and Indian tribals:

“The only people out of Australia who present the chief characteristics of the Australians in a well-marked form are the so-called hill-tribes who inhabit the interior of the Dekhan, in Hindostan. An ordinary Coolie, such as may be seen among the crew of any recently returned East-Indiaman, if he were stripped to the skin, would pass muster very well for an Australian, though he is ordinarily less coarse in skull and jaw.”

The resemblance is due to the Veddoid Carpentarians who came to Australia 5–4 ka. The Australians being more “coarse in skull and jaw” is due to their erectus admixture.

On the map below, from the essay, you can see that Huxley colored southern Egypt as “Australioid”.


He explains this in the following paragraph:

“In the accompanying map, therefore, the deep blue colour (No. 5) is given not only to Australia, but to the interior of the Dekhan. A lighter tint of the same colour occupies the area inhabited by the ancient Egyptians and their modern descendants. For, although the Egyptian has been much modified by civilization and probably by admixture, he still retains the dark skin, the black, silky, wavy hair, the long skull, the fleshy lips, and broadish alæ of the nose which we know distinguished his remote ancestors, and which cause both him and them to approach the Australian and the ‘Dasyu’ more nearly than they do any other form of mankind.”

In his last paragraph on the “Australioid type” Huxley says a couple of things which we now know to be false:

“It is a most remarkable circumstance that no trace of the Australioid type has been found in any of the islands of the Malay archipelago, all the dark-skinned people who occur in some of these islands and in the Andamans being Negritos. On the other hand, no Negroid type is known to occur between the Andamans and East Africa, the darker elements of the Southern Arabian population being Australioid rather than Negroid.”

The map below from this page shows that there are, or were, quite a few Veddoid populations in the Malay archipelago.


The photographs linked to above show that there are people in India who, while not being exactly like Negritos, are very close to Negritos phenotypically. And this page discusses remnants of Negrito populations in Western Asia and Pakistan.

The two images below are from murals in the tomb of Seti I illustrating the Book of Gates (click to enlarge).



The first image shows, from left to right, four Libyans, a Nubian, a Semite, and an Egyptian.

The second image shows, from bottom to top and from left to right, Horus, four Egyptians, four Semites, four Nubians, and four Libyans.

“Libya” to the ancient Egyptians meant all of North Africa to the west of the Nile valley.

Veddoids made up the bulk of the ancient Egyptian population, and they are usually what is depicted in ancient Egyptian artwork, including the images above.

The Egyptian specimens in Howells’ dataset came from Giza during the 26th–30th dynasties (685–343 BC). Giza is in Lower Egypt, just above 30°N. We would therefore expect the specimens to be predominantly Caucasoid, and indeed they are.

The Libyans in the images are Nordic Caucasoids. Like the Andeans and the Guanches, they are covered in tattoos. And like the Andeans and the White Gods, they are dressed in long, colorful, and elaborately patterned robes.

The following quote, which I found here, connects the Guanches to places in Europe, North Africa, and the Americas.

“Archaeologists have found in the Canary Islands many remains of antiquity. On the Large Island, for instance, there was discovered a settlement of the cavern-men, which consists of several tiers of caverns in the rocks, and is called by the natives ‘Atalaya’: it is interesting to note that near Biarritz, in the country of Basques, there exists a mound with the same name. The French writer, Luc Durtain, visited Atalaya in the Canary Islands and has related that the natives there even to-day make clay vases much resembling the Indian vases of pre-Colombian America. Luc Durtain assumes that the present inhabitants of Atalaya inherited the shape and style of ornamentation of these vases from the extinct Guanches. Recently there were discovered in a grotto of the island of Tenerife, near San Miguel, sixty mummies, many ancient ceramics and lions’ skins, the latter of which provoked the scientists to perplexity because lions never had existed in the islands, and the presence of their skins there could be explained only by trade with the Arabs. The Guanches mummified their dead, covering them with gum-resin like the old Egyptians and that mysterious nation whose sepultures were recently discovered in the Sahara by Count Byron de Prorok. The Guanches tattooed their bodies by means of special clay seals: analogous seals were found among the Neolithic layers of Thracia, Liguria, and Puglia. I personally have seen a rich collection of prehistoric seals in Quito (Ecuador): they are of steatite with various carvings. The proprietor of this collection, Mr. Ernesto Franco, dug them up in Esmeralda (Ecuador) from a depth of more than thirty feet, and the geologists consider that layer to be 20,000 years old.”

I-M26 is also found in Liguria and Puglia.

In my last post I pointed out that a spiral petroglyph on one of the Caral pyramids in Peru is almost identical to spiral petroglyphs made by the Guanches on La Palma, one of the Canary Islands. I have since become aware that spiral petroglyphs have been found in many other places. One of these places is Newgrange, the large megalithic structure in Ireland that was built around 3200 BC. Below is a photograph of the spirals on the stone at the entrance of Newgrange.


I-M26 is also found in Ireland. (That’s another thing that’s odd about the Genographic Project 2.0 I-M26 map. The map doesn’t show any I-M26 in Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, or Sweden, even though I-M26 is found in all of those places. And the explanation that I offered for its near absence in Sardinia doesn’t really make sense. Even if they found a Sardinia-specific subclade, it’s still I-M26, and should therefore show up on the map. I don’t see how the map could not be wrong.)

Below is a map that shows the locations at which spiral petroglyphs have been found all over the world (click to enlarge). The distribution corresponds fairly well with the distribution of I-M26. Note in particular the clusters of points in Western Europe, and the very large and dense cluster around Peru. Also note that there’s a point on Easter Island.


Some of the Caucasoid component showing up in the K = 5 analysis is spurious.

The K = 4 analysis showed that some of the Polynesoid component is spurious. The K = 2 analysis showed that the two most Polynesoid populations, the Easter Islanders and the Eskimos, had the highest levels of archaic admixture, and that the other Polynesoid populations had high levels as well. As a result, non-Polynesoid individuals with significant amounts of archaic admixture show up as having some of the Polynesoid component.

The K = 2 analysis also showed that Caucasoids have on average the lowest levels of archaic admixture of all the major races. And as a result of that, non-Caucasoid individuals who have only small amounts of archaic admixture are showing up as being partially, or even entirely Caucasoid.

Elmenteita B, from Kenya, and the Rota specimen, from Micronesia, are good examples of this phenomenon. These two specimens showed up frequently as components along with archaics for the largest negative f3 statistics in the End to simplicity post, because they have such low levels of archaic admixture. And now in the K = 5 analysis, the Rota specimen shows up as being almost entirely Caucasoid, while Elmenteita B shows up as being entirely Caucasoid.

We see this phenomenon in the Andamanese. The Andamanese have low levels of archaic admixture, so most of what remains after the unresolved modern component in the Andamanese is the Caucasoid component.

The Tasmanians had a lot of archaic admixture, but they also had a lot of Andamanese-like admixture, so they’re also showing up with some of the Caucasoid component.

And some of the Andamanese-like admixture in the Australians is showing up as Caucasoid.

A lot of the Caucasoid component shows up in the populations of the Far East. For the northern Japanese, for example, the Caucasoid component is modal. There’s no genetic, historical, or archaeological evidence that Caucasoids ever made up a large part of any Far Eastern population, so it’s very likely that the Caucasoid component is showing up in individuals from those populations because those individuals have low levels of archaic admixture.

However, as the Tarim mummies prove, Caucasoids did inhabit some parts of East Asia, for thousands of years. Dienekes’ ADMIXTURE analysis of his world dataset at the K = 3 level showed that Uyghurs are 45.1% Caucasoid, Mongols are 4.9–20.7% Caucasoid, and Buriats are 13.7% Caucasoid. So the Caucasoid component showing up in the Buriats is very likely to be real.

The Caucasoid component is modal for the specimens from Santa Cruz Island, California, which was inhabited by the Chumash. The Chumash in the photograph below doesn’t look all that Caucasoid in profile.


But from the front, he does look somewhat Caucasoid.



His facial hair in particular indicates possible Caucasoid ancestry.

If the locations of the spiral petroglyphs in the above map are any indication, then the White Gods did travel as far north as the western United States, and thus they could have contributed to Chumash ancestry. They might have also contributed to the ancestry of the Arikara, as they too show some of the Caucasoid component.

And it’s quite possible that the Caucasoid component showing up in the Polynesian populations is real as well.


Posted in Uncategorized
5 comments on “K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis
  1. […] the K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis, the Caucasoid component was modal for the northern Japanese (from Hokkaido), and it also made up a […]

  2. […] above scenario for the peopling of Japan is consistent with the results of the K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis, which showed that the Caucasoid component is modal for the northern Japanese skulls, while the […]

  3. […] K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis showed that the Polynesoid component is modal for the skulls from the Mokapu Peninsula of the […]

  4. […] March 31: K = 5 craniometric admixture analysis […]

  5. […] white and bearded men who originally inhabited the island. I’ll also point out here that my K = 5 and K = 6 admixture analyses of William W. Howells’ craniometric data identified the ancient […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: