In all cases, emphasis added.
See this, abstract:
Geographic patterns in human genetic diversity carry footprints of population history and provide insights for genetic medicine and its application across human populations. Summarizing and visually representing these patterns of diversity has been a persistent goal for human geneticists, and has revealed that genetic differentiation is frequently correlated with geographic distance. However, most analytical methods to represent population structure do not incorporate geography directly, and it must be considered post hoc alongside a visual summary of the genetic structure. Here, we estimate “effective migration” surfaces to visualize how human genetic diversity is geographically structured. The results reveal local patterns of differentiation in detail and emphasize that while genetic similarity generally decays with geographic distance, the relationship is often subtly distorted. Overall, the visualizations provide a new perspective on genetics and geography in humans and insight to the geographic distribution of human genetic variation.
There are “troughs” – low points – in the migration rate, so that genetic variation is not purely clinal, but has more disjunctive differentiation at geographical, cultural, and civilizational boundaries. Thus, from the paper:
Analyses on a finer geographic scale highlight subtler features (e.g., compare Europe in fig. 1 vs. fig. 2a), and reveal that differentiation exists on local and continental scales (supplementary table 2, Supplementary Material online). At these finer scales we continue to see troughs that align with landscape features, though increasingly we see troughs and corridors that coincide with contact zones of language groups and hypothesized areas of human migrations. For example, in Europe (fig. 2b) we observe troughs roughly in zones associated with language contact zones between Germanic and Northern Slavic speakers (W12) and between Northern Slavic speakers and the linguistically complex Caucasus region (W8). These, as well as most of the other features in Europe (troughs through the Alps, Adriatic, between Italy and Sardinia, in Northern Scandinavia), closely align with older results from classical markers (Barbujani and Sokal 1990). The Eastern Eurasian panel (fig. 2e) is largely consistent with the coarser-scale AEA panel.
Please note this figure from the paper, as well as Supplementary Figure 3A; pay particular attention to the brown areas, and the hatched lines where the brown is darkest.
Note the strong trough separating the Northern (European) and Southern (North African) Mediterranean; in addition, there is another, somewhat weaker, trough separating Turkey from the Balkans. This is all consistent with “The Mediterranean Myth” essay I wrote ~ 20 years ago, and which is reproduced below. It is also consistent with this. Another strong trough separates Russians from peoples to the southeast. Essentially, Europe seems reasonably well separated from Afro-Asia. There are troughs within Europe as well, which make sense given what we know about intra-European differences. There is one separating Northern and Southern Europe, consistent with that being the first genetic axis in European PCA. A weaker trough separates Germanics from Slavs – Western Europe from Eastern Europe – consistent with that being the second axis in European PCA. There is one trough in northern Scandinavia, possibly separating Lapps from Germanic Scandinavians. In addition to the major North/South Mediterranean trough mentioned above, there are additional troughs near the islands of Sardinia, Sicily, and Corsica, likely reflecting the geographical barrier of water; thus, as expected, there is some genetic differentiation compared to mainland Italy and France. One trough seems to overlap Cyprus, possibly reflecting not only the geographical barrier of being an island, but perhaps also Greek vs. Turkish ethnocultural distinctions (if the trough runs through the island; the figures are not clear enough). There is, interestingly, a trough running through France, perhaps separating the more “Nordic” types in the north from the more “Alpinid” and “Mediterranean” types in the south. A trough seems to run between France and Germany as well. Looking at these Northern European troughs with respect to the UK and Ireland, we can speculate that the British Isles have genetic commonality with the continental shores of the English Channel and the North Sea (e.g., Normans, Vikings, Saxons), but are differentiated from the rest of continental Europe; thus, the British Isle troughs are not directly around/near the islands themselves (as they are in the case of the Mediterranean islands) but extend to the nearby continental coastal regions. Thus, it would seem that the British Isles and the northern strip of France are more similar to each other than either are to the rest of France or to, say, Central Europe (never mind Southern or Eastern Europe).
The PCA plots on the right of the figure summarizes the clusters formed from this genetic differentiation; these data are similar to what we’ve seen before. These data are consistent with both “gene mirror geography” and distinctiveness between and within continental population groups (races). This all demonstrates that genetic variation is clumpy as well as clinal, and is influenced not only by geographical barriers (mountain ranges, seas) but cultural ones as well (language, religion, civilizational history).
This study is also consistent with my past criticisms of commercial and academic “admixture testing,” the worst of which yields bizarre results at odds with this study (which itself is consistent with most of the literature). As I’ve frequently written, “admixture testing” is only as good as the reference samples (modern and/or ancient) used for comparison (and the modeling methods used). You can model a given population as mixes of varieties of any set of reference populations, with some modeling seemingly being a “better fit” than others, but if none of these models use the appropriate reference populations, then none of them are accurate. It’s just comparing one “bad fit” to another “bad fit” and concluding that one is slightly “less bad” than the other.
The old essay follows:
The Mediterranean Myth
One of the most hoary myths of race is the postulated existence of a cohesive, trans-continental “Mediterranean race.” According to this fantasy, this race includes all brunette, non-Nordish, non-Alpinid “Caucasians”, from Portugal to Bangladesh, from the Alps downward through the Sahara. As we shall see, such a race does not exist and has never existed. We shall also briefly consider the motivations of those who, with complete indifference to reality, continue to promote this myth, for reasons which may have much to do with an animus toward a real sub-racial group – Sudeuropids (South Europeans: i.e., Italians, Iberians, Greeks, Balkan Slavs, Romanians, etc.). Let us examine the evidence.
1. Traditional Physical Anthropology (TPA)
TPA is often invoked to promote the Mediterranean Myth. Three problems with TPA in this regard are:
A) It is out-dated. Many TPA race texts are from the pre-WWII era. Genetic science did not exist then, and TPAs relied more on subjective evaluations of racial similarities and differences. TPA was/is also extensively influenced by the 19th century practice of superficial classification, without a strong empirical basis. We must recognize that what the “experts” of the past said on certain matters sometimes needs to be revised on the basis of current knowledge. We no longer believe that whales are fish, or that infectious diseases are caused by “ill vapors in the ether.” Likewise, our knowledge of race needs to be advanced.
B) TPA itself is somewhat contradictory, because the ethnic phenotypes do not match some of the racial classifications. While Carleton Coon is often cited by the promoters of the Mediterranean Myth, the photographs of Sudeuropids in “The Races of Europe” do not fit into this scheme. The photos are of European people, who do not bear any resemblance to Arabs, Hindus, or any other such “Mediterraneans.” One can look at the phenotypes of Sudeuropids and easily contrast them to that of non-European “Caucasian” groups. The reader of this essay should reflect on the phenotypes of some prominent Sudeuropid celebrities – politicians, entertainers, scientists, etc. – and ask themselves how many of these folks would ever be confused with “Gunga Din.” Racial phenotype does not support the Mediterranean Myth.
C) The Nord extremists who currently support the Mediterranean Myth, on the basis of TPA, seem rather choosy in what they believe and do not believe. For example, Baker (in “Race”) indicates that “Nordids” and “Mediterranids” are quite similar to each other racially, and both groups are far more similar to each other than either is to “Alpinids.” Meanwhile, the current promoters of the Mediterranean Myth ignore this and seem to suggest the opposite. Coon seems to be popular among modern promoters of the Mediterranean Myth. However, these folks seem to ignore the fact that Coon also saw a close relationship between “Nordics” and “Mediterraneans”, and indeed, in some of the text legends to his photographs, indicated a belief that “Nordics” are “partially depigmented” Mediterraneans; in other words, that Nordics are racially derived from Mediterraneans, these groups having a common racial origin. If TPA is to be wholeheartedly believed, then should not these views of Baker and Coon be promoted also?
In summary, TPA is a rather weak reed for the promoters of the Mediterranean Myth to lean on. The evidence below emphasizes that fact.
2. Genetic evidence
Many people are familiar with the work of Cavalli-Sforza, which does support the points of this essay. However, in our opinion, an even better scientific analysis was the work of Nei and Roychoudhury (Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 927-943, 1993), henceforth referred here to as “NR93.” In this work, 29 gene loci (121 gene alleles) from 26 different human populations were studied to ascertain the evolutionary relationships between these groups. This work is of high value precisely because of the large number of genes looked at. As the authors state:
Earlier we emphasized the importance of using a large number of loci in the study of human evolution. This is because (a) the interpopulational genetic variation is very small compared with intrapopulational variation and (b) the evolution of a single gene (or mtDNA) is subject to large stochastic errors (Nei and Livshits 1989; Livshits and Nei 1990). In this study, using gene frequency data for 29 genetic loci, we could reconstruct an evolutionary history of human populations that seems likely to be less controversial and more enduring than some current alternatives.
The findings of this study are of the highest importance. Different population groups were shown to differ genetically – proving the existence of biological race. Africans split off from the rest of humanity first, the next major split being that between Caucasians and a general Asian cluster, each of which demonstrated further splits. Of relevance here is that the European groups studied – English, Germans, Finns, and Italians – all clustered together in an European group, distinctly separate from non-European Caucasians such as Iranians and North Indians, as well as from Lapps. Thus, in contrast to the racial fantasies of the Mediterranean Myth, Sudeuropid Italians were in the European group, separate from non-European “Mediterraneans.” Within the European cluster, one can find sub-clusters, which may correlate with “sub-race”: NW Euros (Germans and English), NE Euros (Finns), and S Euros (Italians). The major point remains that all these groups are European, and no evidence exists here for a “Mediterranean race” including Italians, Iranians, and Indians. The evidence in fact directly contradicts the Mediterranean Myth.
Arthur Jensen in “The g Factor” subjected the NR93 data to sophisticated numerical analysis, producing a chart which demonstrated, in a quantitative sense, which populations clustered together. The number of each population indicates how close that population is to the norm of their respective racial cluster. Populations with similar numbers are highly genetically clustered together. This chart was adapted by Dr. Glayde Whitney and appeared in American Renaissance magazine. The general Caucasian group yielded interesting results. The numbers for this group were: Italians – 989, Finns – 988, Germans – 978, English – 948, North Indians – 704, Iranians – 635, and Lapps – 500. Note well that the various European populations cluster very tightly together, and all are very close to group norms. All European groups are genetically distinct from North Indians, Iranians, and Lapps – another crushing blow to the fantasies of the Mediterranean Myth. In fact, the close European cluster compares with that found for NE Asians; in the NE Asian cluster, Koreans had a value of 959; Japanese, 936. Thus, European populations, in general, are approximately as genetically similar as Koreans and Japanese. This indicates common origins and/or extensive inter-breeding in the past.
Of course, this is not to deny that there has been some gene flow across the Mediterranean. Certainly, there is some genetic evidence for a limited amount of gene flow and gene admixture between the “western Mediterranean” and the “eastern Mediterranean”, between Southern Europe and the Near East. There were a number of instances in history where such flows could have taken place. The questions here are: 1) was this substantial enough to cause the populations to be the same?, 2) is this unique in European history? The answer to #1 is clearly no. First, the NR93 data indicate that Sudeuropid populations are genetically in the overall European cluster. Second, the study by Hammer et al. (PNAS 97, 6769-6774, 2000) of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes demonstrates that Southern European populations fall within the general European cluster and are genetically distinct from Middle Eastern/Near Eastern populations, which form their own cluster. Within the European cluster, Sudeuropid populations tend to fall together, a further proof that Sudeuropids are a sub-race of the greater European race, and not part of some sort of brown-skinned trans-continental “Mediterranean race.” Also of interest is the Y-chromosome study of Bosch et al. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68, 1019-1029, 2001) which states the following:
The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow……..The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in a.d. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool.
So, again, the answer to #1 is no; some gene flow took place, but the populations are clearly genetically and phenotypically, and thus racially, distinct.
The answer to #2 is that such admixture is not unique in European history. Even in Northern Europe there is some evidence of genetic admixture from non-European, and indeed in some cases, non-Caucasian, sources, including Negro as well as Saamish, Ugric, and other Asian-type genes. European ethnic history is complex, but this does not obviate the reality of distinct European racial types. Race is not dependent on absolute “racial purity.”
3. Racial History
The racial history of Sudeuropids is clearly distinct from other putative members of a so-called “Mediterranean race.” NR93 says the following of the European groups studied, including Italians:
Most European populations (e.g., Finns, Germans, English, and Italians) have exchanged genes during the past few thousand years, but they are included here as a group, for study of their evolutionary relationships with other populations.
Indeed. The origins of these closely related populations are explained by NR93 thus:
By contrast, the population that later became Caucasoid apparently moved northwest to occupy Europe; Cro-Magnon, who lived – 10,000-30,000 years ago in Europe, are apparently ancestors of the present Europeans (fig. 6).
This can be contrasted with the comments made by NR93 of other groups, based on the available evidence.
Regarding Iranians and North Indians, they state:
For example, Iranians and northern Indians probably have had gene admixture with East Asians, though they are now primarily Caucasians.
It is obvious that admixture with East Asians is not part of the racial history of Southern Europe.
NR93 give more information about the racial origins of the populations of the Indian sub-continent. Referring to migrations of Blacks from Africa into Asia, they state:
A second group migrated to the Indian Subcontinent and then to Southeast Asia, where they had gene admixture with the mongoloid group (fig. 6). The resultant population absorbed most of its gene pool from the mongoloid group but retained the genes for dark skin, frizzled hair, etc., from Africans, because of natural selection in tropical conditions. This population then moved to New Guinea and Australia – 40,000 years ago. The Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia were later invaded by Caucasoids and mongoloids, respectively, and further gene admixture occurred. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that in these areas there are isolated populations (e.g., Philippine Negritos, Andamanese, Dravidians) with African traits.
This racial history of admixture between Mongolid, Negroid, and Caucasoid populations in the region of India, taking place thousands of miles from Southern Europe, is clearly distinct from the racial history of Sudeuropids. There is no connection whatsoever.
As far as Middle-Easterners and North Africans go, NR93 state:
Therefore, we have excluded populations that are clearly products of recent gene admixture as documented by history (e.g., northern Africans and Middle Easterns)
These populations, clearly considered by NR93 as distinct from the European populations, have their own unique racial histories. For example, Arabs are Semites with a Middle-Eastern origin. In some places they are still relatively pure Semites, in other places, there has been significant admixture with Berber as well as Negro blood (for an example of the latter, remember the phenotype of Anwar Sadat). The issue of gene-flow between the Near East and Southern Europe has been dealt with above. Despite limited gene flow (which has occurred with varying populations throughout Europe), Sudeuropids and Near-Easterners remain phenotypically and genetically distinct populations – different races. The NR93 and Hammer studies reinforce this.
In summary, clearly then the different racial histories of the putative “Mediterranean” groups clearly demonstrate that they are of different race.
The Mediterranean Myth is false, an absurd farce. The reality is of a greater Caucasian race, which can be divided into European, Semitic, Irano-Afghan, Indio-Dravidian, and other such races, each of which can be further sub-divided into sub-races (e.g., in Europe: Nordeuropids, Alpineuropids, Sudeuropids, et al. ). Now, we have no doubt that even after the evidence in this essay is made known, there will be some who will continue to propagate the Mediterranean Myth. Why? Well, if we wish to be charitable, we can say that they, despite all the evidence, are too stubborn to accept the findings of modern science. Or, perhaps, they lack the education and/or mental capacity to understand the data. Less charitable suggestions may be that they hold an animus against Sudeuropids, or even that they wish to promote Sudeuropid genocide via admixture with racially alien groups. If that latter possibility is true, then the agenda there would be to de-legitimize Sudeuropid racial identity, and promote the idea that Sudeuropids are identical to racially alien “Mediterranean” types. The idea would be to deny the existence of the group (Sudeuropids) to be destroyed.
One hopes though that reasonable people will see the evidence and realize that the Mediterranean Myth is false. We can then move beyond absurdities that would claim that Joe DiMaggio was equivalent to a Bangladeshi, and start serious and mature discussions of racial issues, discussions based on truth, science, and mutual respect.