Category: phenotype vs. genotype

No Qualifiers

Phenotypic analysis.

Following upon my comments here, let’s consider the mixed-race Latino agenda.

On the whole, I believe the average “off-white” of America’s future will on average have a skin tone and facial structure similar to that of Gloria Evangelina Anzaldúa, who, appropriately enough, was a Leftist academic who wrote a great deal on Hispanic identity. From my Hispanic perspective, she looks white, with no qualifiers. In time, I suspect American whites will think of her in the same way.

Look at that woman!  She looks White!  No qualifiers!

Well, from my Swarthoid perspective she looks 100% non-White, with no qualifiers. There’s not even the slightest doubt, the instant “binning” from looking at that picture is non-White mestiza. But you see, that’s the agenda and why these “Latino” types are typically hostile to Old World Southern European stocks. They want you to believe there’s no difference between an out-an-out obvious non-White saturated with New World admixture (in this case Amerindian) and Old World European swarthoids.

If you want to use phenotype – and here I specifically mean physical appearance – to judge a person’s racial provenance, then the person in question has to be able to be reasonably identified as a member of the reference group in question.  By “reasonably” I mean that the person’s phenotype is of a type that is found with significant frequency in the population in question, that an identification of the person to that group would be seen as realistic to most people with knowledge of the group, and, most importantly, be seen as realistic by members of the group itself.

If by “White” you mean derived from populations from Europe – Old World native European national and regional stocks – then that woman 100% CANNOT be reasonably placed as phenotypically belonging to any European group. If crazed fetishists claim she could be Iberian (or some other Southern European group) then they demonstrate their own irrationality (or visual defect), as the phenotype in question is not such that is found anywhere in Europe, including in Iberia or any other swarthoid region. On the other hand, she DOES reasonably fit into Mexico or any other “Latino” nation with a large mestizo population.

This is not rocket science. If you look at someone and you IMMEDIATELY think “Latino mestizo/mestiza” then, judging solely by phenotype, how can you say they are “White with no qualifiers?”  That the author sees that face and thinks “White with no qualifiers” is proof positive that in Latin America any person who does not look like boxer Mike Tyson or like Montezuma is considered “White.”

The Senate, People, and Genes of Rome

Der Movement is right about the existence of change over time, but is wrong about mostly everything else.

See here. Abstract, emphasis added:

Ancient Rome was the capital of an empire of ~70 million inhabitants, but little is known about the genetics of ancient Romans. Here we present 127 genomes from 29 archaeological sites in and around Rome, spanning the past 12,000 years. We observe two major prehistoric ancestry transitions: one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age. By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations. During the Imperial period, Rome’s population received net immigration from the Near East, followed by an increase in genetic contributions from Europe. These ancestry shifts mirrored the geopolitical affiliations of Rome and were accompanied by marked interindividual diversity, reflecting gene flow from across the Mediterranean, Europe, and North Africa.

Note: By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations.

That’s a key finding, and at odds with “movement” dogma.

Overall, the findings are somewhat similar to what I previously reported.  Some highlights (emphasis added):

We generated whole-genome data for 127 ancient individuals from 29 archaeological sites in Rome and central Italy (Fig. 1 and table S1). 

The oldest genomes in our dataset are from three Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (10,000 to 7,000 BCE) from Grotta Continenza, a cave in the Apennine Mountains. In PCA, these individuals project close to Western hunter-gatherers (WHG) from elsewhere in Europe, including those from the Villabruna cave in northern Italy and from Grotta d’Oriente in Sicily (12–15) (fig. S17).

As reported previously for WHG groups (12, 14), these individuals show particularly low heterozygosity, ~30% lower than that of early modern central Italians (7). After this period, we see a sharp increase in heterozygosity in the Neolithic Age and smaller increases afterwards, reaching modern levels by around 2000 years before present (fig. S6).

The first major ancestry shift in the time series occurred between 7000 and 6000 BCE, coinciding with the transition to farming and introduction of domesticates including wheat, barley, pulses, sheep, and cattle into Italy (Fig. 2) (6, 16).

Similar to early farmers from other parts of Europe, Neolithic individuals from central Italy project near Anatolian farmers in PCA (13, 14, 17–19) (Fig. 2A). However, ADMIXTURE reveals that, in addition to ancestry from northwestern Anatolia farmers, all of the Neolithic individuals that we studied carry a small amount of another component that is found at high levels in Neolithic Iranian farmers and Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) (Fig. 2B and fig. S9). This contrasts with contemporaneous central European and Iberian populations who carry farmer ancestry predominantly from northwestern Anatolia (fig. S12). Furthermore, qpAdm modeling suggests that Neolithic Italian farmers can be modeled as a two-way mixture of ~5% local hunter-gatherer ancestry and ~95% ancestry of Neolithic farmers from central Anatolia or northern Greece (table S7), who also carry additional CHG (or Neolithic Iranian) ancestry (fig. S12) (14). These findings point to different or additional source populations involved in the Neolithic transition in Italy compared to central and western Europe.

Note: Different or additional source populations. Genetic differences in Europe were established at least as far back as the Neolithic.

During the late Neolithic and Copper Age, there is a small, gradual rebound of WHG ancestry (Fig. 2B and fig. S24), mirroring findings from ancient DNA studies of other European populations from these periods (10, 13, 18, 20). This may reflect admixture with communities that had high levels of WHG ancestry persisting into the Neolithic, locally or in neighboring regions (tables S9 to S11).

The Iron Age and the origins of Rome

The second major ancestry shift occurred in the Bronze Age, between ~2900 and 900 BCE (Figs. 2 and 3, A and B, and tables S13 and S14). We cannot pinpoint the exact time of this shift because of a gap in our time series.

We collected data from 11 Iron Age individuals dating from 900 to 200 BCE (including the Republican period). This group shows a clear ancestry shift from the Copper Age, interpreted by ADMIXTURE as the addition of a Steppe-related ancestry component and an increase in the Neolithic Iranian component (Figs. 2B and 3B). Using qpAdm, we modeled the genetic shift by an introduction of ~30 to 40% ancestry from Bronze and Iron Age nomadic populations from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (table S15), similar to many Bronze Age populations in Europe (10, 13, 14, 19, 22). The presence of Steppe-related ancestry in Iron Age Italy could have happened through genetic exchange with intermediary populations (5, 23). Additionally, multiple source populations could have contributed, simultaneously or subsequently, to the ancestry transition before Iron Age. By 900 BCE at the latest, the inhabitants of central Italy had begun to approximate the genetics of modern Mediterranean populations.

That last part is the authors’ broad conclusion from their data.

The Iron Age individuals exhibit highly variable ancestries, hinting at multiple sources of migration into the region during this period (Figs. 2A and 3B). Although we were able to model eight of the 11 individuals as two-way mixtures of Copper Age central Italians and a Steppe-related population (~24 to 38%) using qpAdm, this model was rejected for the other three individuals (p < 0.001; table S16). Instead, two individuals from Latin sites (R437 and R850) can be modeled as a mixture between local people and an ancient Near Eastern population (best approximated by Bronze Age Armenian or Iron Age Anatolian; tables S17 and S18). An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by f-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S23) and can be modeled with ~53% ancestry from Late Neolithic Moroccan (table S19). Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals) and Latin (n = 6) groups. However, using f-statistics, we did not find significant genetic differentiation between the Etruscans and Latins in allele sharing with any preceding or contemporaneous population (|Z-score|

In contrast to prehistoric individuals, the Iron Age individuals genetically resemble modern European and Mediterranean individuals, and display diverse ancestries as central Italy becomes increasingly connected to distant communities through new networks of trade, colonization, and conflict (3, 6).

Imperial Rome and the expanding empire

During the Imperial period (n = 48 individuals), the most prominent trend is an ancestry shift toward the eastern Mediterranean and with very few individuals of primarily western European ancestry (Fig. 3C). The distribution of Imperial Romans in PCA largely overlaps with modern Mediterranean and Near Eastern populations, such as Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, and Syrian (Figs. 2A and 3C). This shift is accompanied by a further increase in the Neolithic Iranian component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2B) and is supported by f-statistics (tables S20 and S21): compared to Iron Age individuals, the Imperial population shares more alleles with early Bronze Age Jordanians (f4 statistics Z-score = 4.2) and shows significant introgression signals in admixture f3 for this population, as well as for Bronze Age Lebanese and Iron Age Iranians (Z-score < −3.4).

two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta (Fig. 4B). An additional quarter (13 out of 48) of the sampled Imperial Romans form a cluster (C4) defined by high amounts of haplotype sharing with Levantine and Near Eastern populations, whereas no pre-Imperial individuals appear in this cluster (Fig. 4AC). 

Notice that these are two separate groups – a majority of European Mediterranean genetics and a significant Near Eastern minority.

some of the individuals in this cluster also project close to four contemporaneous individuals from Lebanon (240 to 630 CE) (fig. S18) (28). In addition, two individuals (R80 and R132) belong to a cluster featuring high haplotype sharing with North African populations (C4) and can be modeled with 30 to 50% North African ancestry in explicit modeling with qpAdm (table S28).

Different individuals.

The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (n = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria or modern Basque individuals (table S24). The precise identity of the source populations and the admixture fractions should not be interpreted literally, given the simplified admixture model assumed and the lack of data for most contemporaneous ancient populations (7). This ancestry shift is also reflected in ChromoPainter results by the drastic shrinkage of the Near Eastern cluster (C4), maintenance of the two Mediterranean clusters (C5 and C6), and marked expansion of the European cluster (C7) (Fig. 4C).

The high interindividual heterogeneity observed in Imperial Rome continues into Late Antiquity (Figs. 3D and 4). Late Antique individuals are distributed across the eastern Mediterranean (C5), Mediterranean (C6), and European (C7) clusters in roughly equal proportions. Using f-statistics, we identified three outliers who are genetically distinct from others in the same period, including R104, who genetically resembles Sardinians, and R106 and R31, who overlap with modern Europeans in PCA (Fig. 3D). 

In the Medieval and early modern periods (n = 28 individuals), we observe an ancestry shift toward central and northern Europe in PCA (Fig. 3E), as well as a further increase in the European cluster (C7) and loss of the Near Eastern and eastern Mediterranean clusters (C4 and C5) in ChromoPainter (Fig. 4C). The Medieval population is roughly centered on modern-day central Italians…The Normans expanded from northern France to a number of regions, including Sicily and the southern portion of the Italian Peninsula (and even sacked the city of Rome in 1084), where they established the Kingdom of Sicily (3, 36). 

Sallis Summary

Of course, we would like to have more samples, particularly for the Iron Age/Republic period, but the data are (for now) what they are, with the samples available, and we can, for the time being, make an assumption (that may be valid or invalid) that these samples are representative of the wider population. Also, how class differences in that period (e.g., patricians vs. plebeians) can be genetically modeled is unknown. Perhaps more samples will be found, and assayed, in the future.

The only part of the narrative that fits “movement” dogma is the genetic shift to the “east and south” (Eastern Mediterranean and Near East) during the Imperial period. However, it is interesting that the Fall of the Western Empire coincided with the later genetic shift to the “western and northern” directions. That is wholly opposite of “movement” dogma, which suggests Rome fell because of the influence of the “eastern and southern” influx (I suppose they’ll spin it that the “eastern rot” could not be reversed). The major anti-“movement” finding is that the original Romans (as per the study’s limited samples) were not Nordic, they were not Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga. Similarities of the old Roman stock to modern “Mediterranean” populations suggest that the genetics of later Roman populations were roughly returned part-way to the original genetic “centroid” (see Figure 3) by the later “western and northern” influences that counter-acted the “eastern and southern” Imperial influx, resulting in the more modern Roman populations – although this of course only partly approximated the original genetic position, and did not recapitulate the original stock. 

Note that the study is about Rome and surrounding regions (and not all of the areas that constitute the modern Italian nation state). Rome was obviously a very cosmopolitan city as the center of a vast empire, and therefore genetic heterogeneity there over time would be expected to be significantly higher than in other parts of Italy and in the empire as a whole. Thus, likely, genetic heterogeneity in the Roman Empire was at its maximum in Rome and surrounding regions..

So, the “movement” is “one for three.”

1. The “movement” is correct about “eastern” (and “southern”) influences in the Imperial period, and a genetic shift from the Republic to Imperial periods. Likely, Der Movement will be happiest about Figure 4C (as well as the changes shown in Figure 3), and concentrate on that to the exclusion of all else, as it demonstrates these shifts in a dramatic visual fashion. However, keep in mind that – similar to population genetics in general – the labels for genetic components (e.g., in Figure 4C) are descriptive and not meant to be taken literally, and that by “European” the authors are talking about samples whose PCA position is mostly in the area of Northern Italy-Tuscany, extending to Spain/France/Croatia at the far edges (not Northwest Europe proper and certainly not Scandinavia). 

One thing that people have a hard time understanding, and what I harp on about here frequently, is that labels given to things are not equivalent to the things themselves. For example, some of the populations included as “Mediterranean” (or even “Eastern Mediterranean” if that includes Greeks) are European populations; the distinction between that and “European” is arbitrary.  With specific respect to the PCA placement of the Ancient Roman (Iron Age/Republic) samples “European” is more South-Central  European.

The somewhat subjective labeling of Figure 4C can be interpreted in light of some of the fundamental “raw” data. Figures 4A and S26 show haplotype sharing between the Roman samples and modern populations. To be fair to the “movement,” some (not all) of the Iron Age/Republic samples have significant haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe.” However, most of the Roman samples with significant haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” are actually those from the Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern periods.  Moreover, looking at Roman samples with significant haplotype sharing with “Southern Italy” and “Greek” (as well with the general “Southern Europe and Mediterranean” category), some of these are Iron Age/Republic. In fact, some of the same Iron Age/Republic Roman samples have relatively high haplotype sharing with both sets of modern populations (Europeans in general tending to share many genetics) – sample R1 is a prime example of this phenomenon.  Note that “Basque” is included in the “Central and Northern Europe” category and some Iron Age/Republic samples (R473, R105) with relatively high “Central and Northern Europe” actually have relatively higher haplotype sharing with Basques and French.  

Figure S27 is a PCA of the Figure S26 haplotype data and clarifies some issues. Of the Roman samples that are outside the range of modern (North-Central-South) Italy, those that are shifted in the direction of populations of actual Northern and Central European origin (e.g., Roman samples R1219,106, 62, 1286, 1288, 1224, 116, 31) are all from the Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern periods (decline, fall, post-fall).  Several of the Iron Age/Republic samples that seem to show relatively high haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” in Figure S26 are actually shifted in the direction of “Spanish” and “Basque” (and to some degree “French”) in Figure S27 – these include the aforementioned R473 and R1015. The aforementioned R1 sample clusters near “Northern Italy.” Another Iron Age/Republic sample (R850) is in between “Southern Italy” and “Cypriot” in Figure S27. Other Iron Age/Republic samples are close to “Spanish.” Thus, the Iron Age/Republic samples are mostly “West Mediterranean” with some being “Central Mediterranean” (and one or two are outliers), with the former “West Mediterranean” group tending to have more of the relatively high haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” (likely due to the Basque or Basque/French similarities). I do not observe any of the Iron Age/Republic samples overlapping Northern European populations in the PCA of Figure S27.

Thus, the fraction of Iron Age/Republic samples that exhibit significant haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe” tend to either (1) also exhibit significant haplotype sharing with “Southern Italy/Greek” as well as “Northern Italy” and “Central Italy” and hence end up overlapping with Northern Italy; or (2) be shifted in the direction of Basques/Spain, exhibiting a West Mediterranean genotype more Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG)-enriched than other “Mediterranean” populations, thus resulting in enhanced haplotype sharing with other WHG-enriched populations. On the other hand, a smaller fraction of the Iron Age/Republic samples are of a Central/East Mediterranean type (along with an unusual Etruscan sample that may or may not be an outlier for the general Etruscan population), with less haplotype sharing with WHG-enriched populations and, in general, modest haplotype sharing with several of the other population groupings used for comparisons.  

The Iron Age/Republic samples therefore crudely cluster in two groups – the larger group centered on Northern Italy, Central Italy, Basques, Spain, and to some extent France; and a smaller group centered on Central Italy, Southern Italy, general Southern Europe/Central Mediterranean, with some associations with East Mediterranean, as well as that Etruscan sample previously mentioned. This interpretation is broadly consistent with the authors’ comments on their overall findings in the main text, and is also consistent with the right side of Figure S25, which summarizes data of haplotype sharing, identifying “recipient clusters containing ancient individuals.”  Most of the Iron Age/Republic Roman samples are in cluster C12 – “Northern Italy, Central Italy, Spanish, French.” The remainder of the Iron Age/Republic Roman samples are in cluster C22 – “Southern Italy/Greek, ” and cluster C21 – “Spanish.”  The Roman samples shown in cluster C10 – essentially Northern Europeans – are Medieval and Early Modern.

Further, and importantly, Figures S10-12 show admixture analyses for different Roman samples and population groups, along with timelines. To my eyes, the Iron Age/Republic Roman samples exhibit an admixture profile relatively similar to present-day Italy as well as to the various of Roman history in between Iron Age/Republic and modern Italy (including the Imperial period), contrasting to the admixture profile of Northern Europe, which is clearly more different.

Figure S29 gives functional allele frequency data, which mirrors the general genetic data. For example, throughout most of Roman history, lactase persistence is low, and increases only toward the end periods, starting with Late Antiquity, precisely those periods that have samples exhibiting the most haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe.”  Blue eye color was highest in the earliest (Mesolithic) and latest (Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern) Roman periods; Iron Age/Republic and the Imperial periods look similar.  Hair color was not studied.

All of these data suggest a predominantly West Mediterranean character of the Iron Age/Republic (responsible for the haplotype sharing patterns discussed above), with some Central and Eastern Mediterranean influences. That is consistent with the overall PCA of Figure 2, as well as with the authors’ general conclusion that the area approximated modern “Mediterranean” genetics by the time of the founding of Rome. Thus, the general PCA positions (Figure 2) of the Iron Age/Republic samples show that a majority of these fall in the area of Northern Italy/Tuscany (“European”) with a minority (keeping in mind the low number of samples from this period) in the area of Central and Southern Italy (“Mediterranean”). These are different parts of Italy, in Southern Europe; hence, again, the authors overall conclusion is that “By the founding of Rome, the genetic composition of the region approximated that of modern Mediterranean populations.” 

Two other points. First, the authors make clear that genetic modeling of the Imperial population was a problem due to a poor data fit, suggesting that “this was a complex mixture event, potentially including source populations that have not  yet been identified or studied.” That sounds a lot like the parental population problem exhibited by commercially available ancestry testing.  Second, for those interested in single locus data (I am not), mitochondrial DNA (Figure S4) and Y chromosome (Figure S5) show changes over time similar to that of the autosomal genome.

One critique of the paper is that they could have, in the main text, discussed the haplotype sharing data in more detail. Needless to say, genetic kinship analyses would have been helpful, but as I have noted at my blog many times, population geneticists typically eschew performing such determinations.

Now, I have already observed signs that the dishonest “movement” is retconning their dogma, making believe that they never said that the original Romans were Celto-Germanic Nordics. No, now, with 20-20 hindsight, they make believe that they asserted that the original Romans were akin to Northern Italians/Tuscans – that is a complete fabrication of the dogma as well as not fully reporting the full spectrum of the ancient individuals’ genetics. 

Essentially, very crudely speaking, Iron Age/Republic was shifting in the direction of Benito Mussolini, Imperial was shifting toward – and past – Julius Evola, and then Late Antiquity and Medieval was shifting toward Il Duce again, but not getting back to the original position. These are just very crude approximations; the peoples of that period were not literally exactly the same as similar modern peoples. Further, even though genetic heterogeneity in Rome obviously significantly increased after the establishment of Empire, the samples assayed exhibit genetic heterogeneity even before Empire – The Iron Age individuals exhibit highly variable ancestries, hinting at multiple sources of migration into the region.” If we assume these samples represent the general population (obviously an important assumption for this study), then the founding of Rome was due to a somewhat diverse population base. Whether that correlates to patricians vs. plebeians is an interesting question. Regardless, the existence of genetic heterogeneity from the beginning of the Roman state is not consistent with much of “movement” dogma.

Another point, as alluded to above, is that while we can determine which extant groups seem most similar to Roman samples from different time periods, with Iron Age/Republic being of particular interest, that doesn’t mean that the Romans of any particular period were actually the same as any extant group or groups. Populations change over periods of centuries and millennia and this is particular true of an area with the history of Rome, with various population movements and important historical events over time. Similarity is not the same as exact identity.  Ancient peoples no longer exist as they did at their time, but we can determine which extant groups are most similar, and when the extant groups occupy similar territory as the ancients, then the extant groups are likely to be in part descended from those ancients. The Roman stock as such no longer exists, but we can determine what a small subset of them were like genetically (and get some phenotypic characteristics from functional genes), and make possible associations with modern populations. A careful study of busts and statues from, e.g., the Roman Republic shows facial phenotypes that are not really precisely the same as any extant group. One can look for phenotypic similarity, as with the genes, but not exact identity, when comparing ancients and moderns. The same goes for other groups. There are no Gauls anymore, as they were back then, but there are extant groups similar, with likely a linkage of descent between them.

2. The “movement” is wrong about the Fall of the Western Empire being associated with an increasing “eastern” and “southern” component. It is the other way around. The Fall occurred as the population of Rome was, genetically speaking, moving “west” and “north.”  Unlike Der Movement, I do not postulate (a crudely deterministic) cause and effect between these genetic changes and the sociopolitical situation in Rome (as far as I understand, corruption was maximal in Late Antiquity). Der Movement would of course, I presume, make distinctions between “decline” and “fall” and assert that the “fall” was due to the “decline” caused by the “eastern (and “southern”) influx.” Indeed, one can expect the most “interesting” interpretations of these findings by the “movement.” Nevertheless, the Roman state was founded by a Southern European population likely most akin (but not identical) to modern Northern Italians, but with Central and Southern Italian influence as well, and at the height of Imperial power, the city of Rome was more “Mediterranean” in character, albeit with some unfortunate significant influences from regions outside of what is today Italy (or Europe as a whole). 

3. Most of all the “movement” is wrong – 100% wrong – with the idea that the original Romans were Nordics akin to modern Northwest Europeans.  See my comments for points 1 and 2 above; also as regards point 3, I once again cite from the paper:

After two major prehistoric population turnovers—one with the introduction of farming and another prior to the Iron Age—individuals in central Italy began to genetically approximate modern Mediterranean populations…The Iron Age individuals exhibit highly variable ancestries, hinting at multiple sources of migration into the region during this period An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by f-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S23) and can be modeled with ~53% ancestry from Late Neolithic Moroccan (table S19). Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals) and Latin (n = 6) groups….In contrast to prehistoric individuals, the Iron Age individuals genetically resemble modern European and Mediterranean individuals, and display diverse ancestries as central Italy becomes increasingly connected to distant communities through new networks of trade, colonization, and conflict (3, 6).

From a historical-sociopolitical narrative, pride of place first of all does of course has to go with the founders of Rome, who established the city and its traditions, as well as conquered the bulk of what was to become the Empire – the Iron/Age Republic group.  However, from the same narrative perspective, second place has to go to the extenders, maintainers, and rulers of the Empire, who established the Pax Romana.  Now, one cannot conflate all of the urban rabble of any period (Iron Age/Republic as well as Imperial, or later) with the ruling strata. Thus, from a biopolitical perspective, the ruling strata of the Imperial period would likely be those of European Mediterranean stock; that Imperial population would likely be similar to the smaller “group 2” fraction of the Iron/Age Republic era described above. 

An important take-away point on all of this is that the political situation of a polity can affect its genetic composition (which we know intuitively, but it is demonstrated here). The division of the Roman Empire between West and East shifted the genetics of Rome in a more “western and northern” direction. Indeed, these data support a trend opposite of “movement” dogma – it is more that political changes drive genetic changes than vice versa (although, in theory, there can be feedback in both directions; the point here is that the Roman data – from the “movements” own assumptions about population character – support the politics affecting genes’ direction and not the reverse).

Similar to Ancient Rome, a European Imperium that deports non-Europeans and cuts off population movements with non-Europe will decrease kinship overlap between Europe and non-Europe and increase kinship overlap between European peoples, given enough time (and the latter will occur without any panmixia). 

In any case, with respect to the paper, we can expect the most outrageous lies, distortions, and misinterpretations about it from the fundamentally dishonest “movement.”  They’ve done it  before.  I urge the reader to take a look at the paper itself (and much of the text is reproduced here, above), including the supplementary data section, and come to your own conclusions. Hopefully, you’ll see that my summary is essentially correct and that whatever nonsense Der Movement comes up with is just that – nonsense.

Racial Recapitulation Theory Revisited

Do aging human phenotypes recapitulate ancestry?

I previously posted about this idea; please read it here. However, revisiting it is not only useful for newer readers, but every iteration of the idea expands and extends the analysis, allows for more ideas to come forth, more hypotheses to be tested, and more possibilities to be discussed and evaluated.

Read this about recapitulation theory:

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel’s phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”—is a historical hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal’s remote ancestors (phylogeny). 

The idea of this post is this: Aging human phenotypes recapitulate ancestry.  In other words, as people age, their physical appearance (and perhaps other phenotypic markers including behavior) tend to reflect to greater or lesser degrees certain aspects of their ethnoracial ancestry.

Imagine a Greek-Danish hybrid.  Perhaps they look (and act?) “more Greek” when younger and “more Danish” when older.

Mono-ethnic individuals can display such trends; after all, modern ethnies are derived from mixtures of older stocks.

Here is a young Benito Mussolini, who looks remarkably like the Mexican General Mapache from The Wild Bunch, Mapache with obvious Amerind ancestry.

We can compare that to pictures of the Duce taken in later years:

Mussolini obviously looked more typically European as he aged.

This phenomenon may be restricted to just physical appearance, or, more interestingly, behavioral changes may track with appearance over time (see below), associated with phenotypes reflecting ancestral stocks. An individual may be a greasy, undisciplined southerner as a youth and a restrained, more gracile northerner in older age.

Does this tracking of ancestral phenotypes with aging follow a specific direction as does the ontology-phylogeny association (in that case toward greater evolved complexity and toward the final form of the organism)?  

In Mussolini’s case you can say that the direction was toward a more gracile and “northern” phenotype (but not by much, truth be told), although the coarseness of aging to a large extent counteracts any racial gracilization that occurs (perhaps this is why it is “not by much”), or from Mediterranid to Alpinid, or, perhaps more properly speaking, from East Mediterranean/Levantine toward a more West Mediterranean/Central European focus.  

That may be a specific case and not generalizable, or it may reflect some underlying trends, at least for some Europeans, as well as for people of part European descent (such as Ted Williams).  Here we see a young Ted Williams, who looks ready for a zoot suit riot; on the other hand, a John Wayne-esque older Ted Williams reflects more of his paternal heritage. Williams was of mixed British Isles (Welsh, Irish) and (diverse) Mexican ancestry.  

Getting back to Europeans – Mussolini was Northern Italian. What about a Southern Italian? A young Joe DiMaggio (Sicilian ancestry) looks like a S. Italian zip; an older Joe DiMaggio looks like a N. Italian banker. All anecdotal evidence to be sure; but provocative nevertheless.  A wholly Northern European celebrity?  Perhaps Sean Connery would be instructive here?

Does the same hold for unmixed non-Europeans?  Who knows?  Does it require some threshold level of different underlying ancestries and, if so, how far back?  Racial purity in the absolute sense it a myth, and, once again considering Europe, if you can far back enough all Europeans are mixes of different tribes or proportions of Hunter-Gatherer, Neolithic Farmer, Steppe, and other elements. In a case of someone of perhaps less “recent” “admixture” would they recapitulate their proportions of those ancient ancestral source populations?  These are all fruitful questions for more study.

Individuals of mixed race, crosses of different continental population groups, would be expected to show similar patterns of phenotypic change with age.

What could be possible mechanisms for this phenomenon?  Epigenetic changes with age? Hormonal changes with age, affecting gene expression (including by epigenetic effects)? Are there timed sequences of gene expression “cassettes” activated by some mechanism (including those just mentioned) that activate different phenotypic profiles at different ages.

Also, we can ask whether this phenomenon is just an emergent property of the complexities of gene expression from mixed ancestry, or whether there is some sort of selective pressure at work. Is reproductive success at younger ages emphasized by a less gracile, more “southern,” more r-selected type phenotype, and then, with increasing age, and the need to provide for family, to be a stable provider, to increase fitness of grandchildren and the extended family, and/or group selective mechanisms for prudent group activity, older people expresses a more k-selected, gracile, restrained, “northern” phenotype?

Does this imply that behavioral changes accompany the changes in physical appearance? The impetuous energetic youth looking more like a greasy swarthoid, and the same individual in a more prudent old age, looking more like the centroid of the European phenotypic range (for Europeans)?

No doubt, we can find pictures of people who look less racially gracile with age.  So, for the theory in its broadest sense, phenotypic change with age is key, not necessarily becoming more racially gracile with age. It may not even be a matter of a unidirectional trend – toward either greater or lesser racial gracility with age. One could imagine a situation where a person, at different stages of their life, reflects different aspects of their ancestry in their phenotype, possibly fluctuating back and forth between different degrees of racial gracility. 

How long does it take for these changes to occur?  Decades would certainly be enough time.  But less than a decade? Years?  I would think that changes may not be so noticeable for periods less than ten years.

Another Answer to Retardation

He may as well talk to the wind for all the good it will do.

As regards this issue, see the comment below. I don’t agree with every detail, but the main thrust is generally in accord with my views, and the points to which I agree with most are highlighted. I am not correcting the various errors of writing or formatting; those are minor issues of no great relevance to the main themes of the comment.

Posted July 11, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
Another Nordicist who tries to “preach” us about history. This thing never ends; always trying to find artificial excuses to undermine Southern European contribution to Europe and further divide Europeans based on some outdated ideology. There’s a reason why the Star Systems and planets have Greek and Roman names and not Norse ones. See now how we’ve engaged in this fruitless debate that only serves our demise?
Furthermore all White Nationalists have to keep in mind a few things:
a) It’s not Greeks that have Turkish DNA but instead it’s the Turks that have Greek ancestry (along with other ethnic backgrounds). There is virtually no research or proof that shows that Greeks have Turkic ancestry. All racially mixed offsprings were either absorbed into the Turkish society or the Christian Orthodox women would commit suicide or murdered and shunned by their families before having kids with the “Muslim Oppressor”.
b) The Ancient Greeks had this ancient motto knows as “pas mi Hellen varvaros” which means “all non-Hellenes are barbarians”. Although there were some exception among the lines of the Persian, Celtic, and Roman kindred, Greeks shared an equal hatred even for each other (Spartans vs Athenians, etc.). Alexander was no exception, as the man who civilized the East.
c) Nordicist ideology has contaminated our tenets for more than a century and has only served to divide and conquer us, by placing basis on an abstract sub-racial division. There are Nordics common in all European nations just as there are Meds in Britain and Ireland.

c) Although not directly related to this article, it is vital to acknowledge that Pan-Europeanism is our only way out. When the Southern States, Southern And Northern Europe get overrun by migrants we ‘re gonna have to unite in a way that has never been done before. The US showed that White intermixia and nationhood is perfectly feasible and desirable if we proceed carefully step by step to that direction (that has already been happening for centuries now; look at us for example). It sure as hell didn’t lead to chaos and anarchy as some Ethnonationalists would wish. Now I’m saying this as someone who is of pure ethnic stock and has reached to that conclusion after lots of consideration and the studying of history.

The SYSTEM doesn’t give a penny or two about whether you’re Anglo-Celtic, Greek, Nordic, or what. All they see is a White person, and they attack our Whiteness because that’s the essence of our identity.

NATIONALISM is evolutionary: it extends for the POLIS to the REGION to the COUNTRY and eventually to the WHOLE RACE. By simply making a regression to these patterns would mean to be forced to repeat this endless loop of factricidal war and foreign infiltration. The Athenians would’ve objected to be united with the Spartans under the “generic definition” of the Greek, and they’d want to keep their “individual differences and have their separate ways”. Now that Greece is united, do you see any war between the two? Now they’re just Greeks and nothing else.

In less then two centuries time we’ll see the salvation of the White Race come to fruition under a life-saving fusion of all those who are Called Europeans akin to that in the US; under a centralized transcontinental state . Think on that.

The major problem with this well-meaning fellow is that he is wasting his time. He may as well talk to the wind for all the good it will do; he’ll get more of a useful response if he was addressing a pile of bricks.

It doesn’t matter that there is no evidence supporting the Counter-Currents viewpoint, it doesn’t matter that ancient DNA studies have so far refuted Kemp, none of that matters. When you are dealing with blind religious faith, facts do not matter and logic does not matter.  There is no place in Der Movement for pan-Europeanists, just as there is no place for Southern and Eastern Europeans. The Type Is have always had a stranglehold on control of the American “movement” and they will continue to hold on; if you want change, you’ll have to do it yourself by contributing to the formation of a new, alternative racial nationalist structure, a Type II-led movement.

I want to comment on this picture, much beloved by Nordicists. By modern phenotypic standards, we may say, subjectively, that Terentius Nero had an atypical phenotype. Very well.  So what?  That’s not evidence supporting that he was not of indigenous stock.  We do not know the range of indigenous phenotypes of ancient Italy.  For all we know, Nero’s phenotype  may have been common, at least among those of plebian stock, and may reflect Neolithic farmer ancestry. On the other hand, maybe he did have non-indigenous ancestry. Can you know any of that by looking at that one picture?  It’s not as if he looked like a Negro, a Chinaman, or David “Chopsticks” Bromstad, for example.

If you want to play the (frankly stupid) game of using single pictures to make snap judgments about an entire ethny, nation, people, or race, then what about this?  The ancient peoples of Italy were brown-skinned with black curly hair! Terentius the Etruscan!

This is the young Benito Mussolini, a representative of a people – Northern Italians – that Der Movement likes to tell us (absurdly) are “Celto-Germanic Nordics.” Judging by that picture, the typical Northern Italian male looks like the younger brother of General Mapache from The Wild Bunch.

By the standards of “one picture to judge a people,” I won’t get into what the Bromstad family, or Bjork, may tell us about Northern Germanics.

Meanwhile, on a completely different (of course!) matter, I’m working on a post or posts in which I am going to admit that Sallis was wrong about an issue concerning the “movement,” in contrast to certain academic types who were right.  Stay tuned!

Race and Skin Properties

We are NOT “all the same.”

See this about skin properties.

See this. Excerpts below, emphasis added:

Ethnic groups and highlighted key differences in facial structure


Caucasian face Narrower nasal base and larger tip projection, intercanthal widths identical to the African face, lips with less volume

East Asian face Weaker facial skeletal framework, wider and rounder face, higher eyebrows, fuller upper lid, lower nasal bridge with horizontally placed flared ala, flatter malar prominence and midface, more protuberant lips, and more receded chin

Latino/Hispanic face Increased bizygomatic distance, bimaxillary protrusion, broader nose, broad rounded face, and a more receded chin

African-American face  Broad nasal base, decreased nasal projection, bimaxillary protrusion, orbital proptosis, increased soft tissue of the midface, prominent lips, and increased facial convexity

I don’t like the “Caucasian” category that bins MENA folks with Europeans, but, putting that aside, note the important and fundamental differences in facial structure between the major racial groups.

Let’s consider the HBDers’ favorite continent – Asia:

The Asian face. The Asian population is quite diverse. Literature is limited and has typically focused on a particular ethnicity or a small number of outcomes in several Asian populations, mostly from East Asia. Although literature is limited and without a full, thorough comparison, there are many differences that have been noted. East Asians typically have less wide mouths, elongated intercanthal width, and wider lower nasal margins.38 Studies suggest that Asians have a weaker facial skeletal framework, which results in greater gravitational soft-tissue descent of the mid-face, malar fat pad ptosis, and tear trough formation. It has also been proposed that the facial structure of Asians is similar to that of an infant, including a wider and rounder face, higher eyebrow, fuller upper lid, lower nasal bridge with horizontally placed flared ala, flatter malar prominence and midface, fuller and more protuberant lips, and more receded chin.39,40

Note the neotenic aspects of the Asian phenotype East Asian facial structure is similar to that of an infant. Also note that the higher body fat percentages of East Asians is also infant-like. This supports the idea that Yellow Fever has an underlying pedophilia predisposition to it. It is perhaps not surprising that a leading “movement” figure with an East Asian wife has publicly questioned why child porn should be illegal. Note the “frog faced” characteristics of the East Asian facial phenotype as well.

Despite the large South East Asian population, limited studies have been conducted assessing facial structure. Overall, there is tremendous variability over such a large geographic area and diverse population. Despite this, it is generally accepted that those from the Indian subcontinent share more Caucasoid than Mongoloid anatomical traits of the skull and face. 

Here we see the authors binning South Asians with East Asians, which is just as (if not more) racially stupid as binning Europe with MENA:

Compared to East Asians, South Asians typically possess eyelids that are on a more highly exposed platform, have well-developed nasal bridge with tip projection, and have comparatively darker and more uneven skin tones. Also, South Asians tend to have fuller lips and higher cheek bones with more buccal fat, often giving the lower cheek a more rounded contour. These features often provide physical support for the aging face more so than other Asian ethnicities.

The bottom line: Race is real and is written on all of our faces.  Live with it.  Reality doesn’t care about your politically correct feelings.

Racial Kinism vs. Racial Instrumentalism

Two competing visions of racialism: WN vs. HBD.

There are many distinctions within racial activism.  One fundamental difference is that between White nationalists proper and so-called HBD race realists.  Of course, there is overlap between these positions to a greater or lesser degree.  However, let us consider the question of where a person’s primary interests lie.  Does a person take the view that race is of interest because they wish to preserve and promote their race for the reason that it is theirs – a kinship-EGI-based approach, or is their interest in race instrumental and utilitarian – they view population groups on the basis of some phenotypic characteristics of these groups, characteristics independent of whether or not the group is one to which the person belongs.  The former position, which I term here “Racial Kinism,” is more relevant to basic White nationalism (or any racial nationalism), while the latter position is that taken by HBD race realists.

Let us back up a minute and clarify.  HBD race realism is often pursued for reasons other than those stated by the HBDers.  For example, Jewish and Asian HBDers are for the most part really Race Kinists – racial nationalists – who support HBD as a way of promoting their own racial interests. In this case, they are Racial Kinists pretending to be Racial Instrumentalists in order to manipulate White HBDers to behave in ways congenial to Jewish and Asian interests. Thus, HBD is an approach for Jews and Asians to have White HBDers as the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians. Some White HBDers have personal reasons for promoting HBD – consider Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  So, familial and sexual interests play a role.  Academic HBDers promote their careers, and so forth. [And we have the White Silkers and their sexual motivations – but that’s another story].

But what about, speaking generally here, White HBDers without any obvious personal agenda?  How do we compare their viewpoints to that of White nationalists?  How do we compare Kinism vs. Instrumentalism regarding race?

Racial Kinism:  This group supports racial preservationism for its own sake. This is the basic White nationalist position – if you are White, then the White race is your race, and one you should support and promote, akin to family writ large.  Certainly, such a person may value particular characteristics of Whites, and may use such arguments, but that is not the primary motivation.  This agenda is consistent with Salter’s concept of EGI – ethnic genetic interests – a kinship-based approach where one’s ethny is a large storehouse of genetic interest for them, and inclusive fitness approaches to promote the interests of one’s ethny is consistent with biologically adaptive behavior. The Racial Kinist approach therefore values as the ultimate focus of interest biological/genetic relatedness (kinship). One supports one’s race because it is their race.  Such individuals realize that it is maladaptive to sacrifice the interests of your group for that of another group, just because that other group may rank higher on some phenotypic trait that someone values (proximate interest).  The ultimate interest of genetic continuity and EGI trump any proximate concern.  Again, this does not mean that proximate concerns are unimportant, merely secondary.

Racial Instrumentalism:  This group views race primarily in an instrumental and purely utilitarian fashion.  An ethny is valued because of how they rank in a hierarchy of certain phenotypic traits.  Arguments in favor of one’s ethny revolve around some perceived (or objective) value they have based on certain characteristics that are independent of the genetic kinship the ethny has to the person making the evaluation of the phenotypes.  While such a person may profess some value in kinship, this is a relatively weak factor; they are primarily concerned with “form and function,” and if another ethny ranks higher in the desired traits than one’s own, then that genetically alien ethny will be valued to an equal degree.  Racial Instrumentalism – caring about population groups primarily based on perception of traits, ability, and performance – leaves the instrumentalist vulnerable to extreme maladaptive behavior, as they can invest in a genetically distant group rather than in their own.  It is Whites who are particularly vulnerable – as they are generally more individualistic, lower on ethnocentrism, more universalist, more “objective” and “rational” when it comes to evaluating groups, and therefore more prone to “judge individuals rather than groups” and thus willing to accept membership in a racial categories (e.g., cognitive elitism) based on traits rather than on kinship.  Other groups, more ethnocentric and subjective in their ethnic self-interest, can manipulate this aracial universalism of Whites by promoting to those Whites the “legitimacy” of these aracial categories in which the ethnocentric non-Whites are valued for their ranking on traits.  Thus, a White HBDer, being a Racial Instrumentalist, rejects Blacks only because Blacks are perceived as stupid, violent, uncreative, sociopathic, and useless, not because of the gulf of kinship, the raw racial difference; conversely, Jews and Asians are valued as “high-IQ cognitive elitists.”  Whites can be manipulated into non-reciprocated “alliances” with these groups.  Also, note how White HBDers are manipulated into rejecting so-called “Outer Hajnal” Europeans while at the same time embracing genetically alien Jews and Asians who are even more “Outer Hajnal” than any of the European groups in question.  Interestingly, a trait ranking that is a problem when associated with fellow Europeans mysteriously disappears as an issue of concern when Jews and Asians are considered.  If none of this makes sense, well, it is really not supposed to.  The HBD cult is, in the last analysis, a strategy for making Whites into the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians.

It’s interesting that many WN 1.0 Kinists refuse to critique HBD instrumentalism.  Is that because of personal connections – the good old boys network?  Is it because they foolishly think they can use instrumentalism in an instrumental fashion, to promote kinism (the means defeating the ends, I think)? Is it because the Instrumentalists appeal the ethnic and subracial vanity of the WN 1.0ers – you guys are better than the swarthoids and hunkies? Or is it plain cowardice, naiveté, or both?

Indeed, many Kinists are heavily into Instrumentalism.  Nothing wrong with using some degree of Racial Instrumentalism as a “side-argument,” but not as the main issue. Alluded to above, I believe that certain Kinists have been (intentionally) “seduced” by the HBDers, appealing to the Kinists’ vanity and the narcissism of minor differences, favorably comparing the good “Inner Hajnal” (and higher-IQ) superior Whites to the bad “Outer Hajnal” (and lower-IQ) inferior Whites.  Thus, these Kinists are made to feel part of a (cognitive elitist and behavior elitist) “elect” – which serves the HBD purpose of dividing Whites against each other.  Note that Jews have been said to promote alien immigration into America so as to disrupt the White majority, to disrupt the homogeneity and organic solidarity of White America – because Jews feel more safe and comfortable as one minority among many in a diverse America, and not as an identifiable minority singled out in a more homogeneous majority White America.  Similarly, HBDers fear and oppose (pan-European) White solidarity that would exclude Jews and Asians, and thus they do everything possible to disrupt the organic solidarity of the European peoples, turning different types of Whites against each other, to build a Jeurasian ingroup based on a HBD-promoted ranking of traits that would have Jews and Asians on top. And the Type I Kinists fall for it time and again, because their egos and ethnosubracial vanity trumps prudence and common sense.

What about the argument that HBDers are in “pursuit of the truth?’’ Long time readers of this blog, familiar with my exposés of HBD, know this is a lie, and know that the HBDers lie, distort, cherry pick, and omit to pursue their political agenda.  Is “pursuit of the truth” why certain “race realists” refuse to discuss population genetics findings – even those generated by Jewish researchers! – that show Jews as a genetically distinct entity, different from Europeans?  Why did the HBDers get all hysterical over the Schettino case, but studiously ignore a similar incident involving Koreans?

No, HBD, ultimately is a political movement; it is not science.  Real racial science is based on falsifiable hypotheses and hypothesis-testing, it is based on facts and skepticism, hard data, proper methodology, and a willingness to re-think ideas if the data do not fit.  HBD starts with the desired conclusion and then creates ad hoc hypotheses, combined with cherry picked data, and hand-waving spin to explain when, inevitably, the data do not support the hypotheses.  When was the last time an HBDer admitted they were wring about something fundamental?  It is politics, not science, with the politics serving Jewish and Asian interests and White HBDers seduced into supporting the political interests of alien racial groups.  That Jews have been supporting HBD is without question. They’ve supported it financially and,of course, people like Hart and Levin have been leading HBDers, saying nothing of Sailer who in the past made vague claims of at least part Jewish ancestry for his biological parents.

Although Racial Kinist WNs and Racal Instrumentalist HBDers can sometimes cooperate on certain narrow projects, the bottom line is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible when one considers primary value systems.

This is all a concern as the HBD Alt Wrong attempts to seize control of Der Movement, and many WNs refuse to oppose this, or in some cases, commit Race Treason and facilitate it.  And if so-called “anti-Semitic” WN 1.0ers continue to fail to speak out against the At Wrong, I will call them out about it.  HBD is NOT racial science, it is a perversion of it.  What are you waiting for?


Kinism apparently exists in Christianity as well.  I would guess Jews and Asians are not preferred there either.

Lost Haplotypes

A bit more on admixture.

One must remember that the farther back an admixture event is, the more difficult it is to detect, at least with the 23andMe methodology.  Over time, haplotypes are broken up by recombination and, after a while, the intrusive alleles become part of a group’s native genome and are possibly no longer recognized as admixture.  This is particularly true if the admixture is small.

This, if group X is a mixture of A, B, and C in historic times, this is fairly easily detected, even if components B and C are relatively minor.  Going back much farther in time, it is not so easily detected, and the genetic combination of A, B, and C is just considered as “pure X.”  The ancient combination blend is no longer easily discernible – by methods looking at haplotypes and using extant populations as the parentals (ancient DNA is another matter, see below).

Some would say using NRY and mtDNA would help in this regards but those are single locus markers very sensitive to population replacement events.  If the degree of admixture was relatively small, and ancient, there may well be no trace using those uniparentally inherited markers.

Then again, access to ancient autosomal DNA, utilizing appropriate methods, can (and does) detect ancient admixture, which is why the European genepool can be viewed as a mix of ancient components, and that’s fine, but with respect to “racial admixture” as is commonly perceived the problem still exists. When people, particularly heavy-breathing Nutzis, talk about admixture, they typically refer to the various racial groups extant today; they do not refer to ancient tribal groups making up the bulk of the European genepool nor do they refer to Neanderthal gene variants that are a normal part of that genepool.  And it is precisely the type of admixture that Der Movement worries itself so much about that is characterized by the problem discussed here.

It is possible that the existence of such “occult” ancient admixture could explain unusual phenotypes observed at low frequencies in populations thought to be (relatively) “pure.”  Alleles from intrusive groups exist, “scattered” throughout the population, but not recognized as intrusive, but instead viewed as part of the normal gene frequency pattern in these populations.  Such alleles may happen to be more prevalent in certain families, and through random mating events (independent assortment, recombination) may become concentrated in particular individuals – resulting in an “atavistic” physical appearance reflecting low levels of (near) undetectable admixture in the population.

Of course, on an individual (or even family), even with more recent admixture, recombination can dissociate alleles coding for phenotypic traits from other alleles typically used to ascertain ancestry, particularly when the former are few in number (e.g., for isolated traits or sets of traits).  On a population level, this may be less of a problem for more recent admixture, as these things average out, but for more ancient admixture, the issue described above still may hold.

Possibilities such as this, and the inherent problems in ascertaining very old low levels of admixture fly night over the heads of Type I ethnic fetishists.  On the other hand, these problems may actually be desirable for some, as the outcomes reinforce pre-existing dogma.