The Denisova hominin need not be an out of Africa story

I had a similar reaction when the original article was published, but this piece in the Journal of Human Evolution makes a much more extensive and better-argued case:
The recent retrieval of a complete mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence from a 48–30 ka human bone from Denisova (Siberia) (Krause et al., 2010) is a remarkable achievement fully deserving international acclaim. Without wishing to detract from this feat, however, we wish to challenge their conclusion that the Denisova hominin “derives from a hominin migration out of Africa [ca. 1.0 Ma] distinct from that of the ancestors of Neanderthals and of modern humans” (Krause et al., 2010: 894). In addition, we challenge their assumption that the ancestors of the Neanderthals left Africa between 500–300 ka. In our view, alternative interpretations of the evidence are available and should be considered.
Longer excerpts below:

Did the Denisova hominin derive from “a hominin migration out of Africa [ca. 1.0 Ma] distinct from that of the ancestors of Neanderthals and of modern humans” (Krause et al., 2010: 894)?

In support of Krause et al. (2010), there is evidence of hominin dispersals from Africa after the first documented appearance of Homo erectus ca. 1.75 Ma and before 0.5 Ma. Mammalian dispersals from Africa were much easier in the Early Pleistocene than during the Middle Pleistocene (see below) [. . .]

Although hominins could therefore have dispersed from Africa ca. 1.0 Ma, as suggested by Krause et al. (2010), we also need to bear in mind both the small number of relevant African finds from the late Early Pleistocene and the virtual absence of fossil skeletal evidence from the 5,500 miles of continental Eurasia (i.e., excluding Java) between Spain and China (a gap equivalent to the distance from London to Johannesburg). In Africa, the crania from Buia (0.9 Ma) and Daka (ca. 1 Ma) are the most relevant to understanding whatever might have been happening in Asia. Neither are straightforward examples of African H. erectus; [. . .] Neither specimen has obvious counterparts in Asia. Within Eurasia, the fossil hominin evidence from Southwest Asia – the cross-roads between Africa and Europe, but also the “black hole of palaeoanthropology” (Dennell, 2009:192) – between 1.5–0.5 Ma is limited to a few incisors from ‘Ubeidiya, one of which has been identified as H. erectus (Belmaker et al., 2002). The earliest European hominin evidence is the mandible from the Sima del Elefante (ca. 1.3 Ma) (Carbonell et al., 2008) and an assemblage of >150 specimens from the Gran Dolina TD6 level, ca. 0.8–1.0 Ma ([Falguères et al., 1999] and [Berger et al., 2008]) that is attributed to Homo antecessor ([Carbonell et al., 1995], [Carbonell et al., 2008] and [Bermúdez de Castro, 1997]). Putting aside discussions about its taxonomic distinctiveness (e.g., [Lahr and Foley, 1998], [Rightmire, 2008] and [Hublin, 2009]; but also see [Bermúdez de Castro, 1997], Bermúdez de Castro, 2003 J.M. Bermúdez de Castro, M. Martinón-Torres, S. Sarmiento and M. Lozano, Gran dolina-TD6 versus Sima de los Huesos dental samples from Atapuerca: evidence of discontinuity in the European Pleistocene population?, J. Archaeol. Sci. 30 (2003), pp. 1421–1428. Article | PDF (226 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14)[Bermúdez de Castro, 2003], [Delson et al., 2000], [Mounier et al., 2009] and [Stringer, 2009]), morphologically, the European Early Pleistocene populations currently represented by the Sierra de Atapuerca hominins are closer to Early Pleistocene hominins from Asia than those from Africa ([Carbonell et al., 2005], [Carbonell et al., 2008] and [Martinón-Torres et al., 2007]). Archaeologically, the absence of any Acheulean artefacts at Atapuerca would make a Eurasian origin more likely, as hominins dispersing from the Levant after 1.4 Ma would be expected to retain an Acheulean technology. The Chinese evidence ca. 1 Ma is limited to the cranium from Lantian (Gongwangling), for which an age of 1.15 Ma is most commonly cited (An and Ho, 1989), and the two crania from Yunxian, which probably date to 0.8–1.0 Ma. Both have previously been assigned to H. erectus (Wu and Poirier, 1995). Work in progress indicates that the Gongwangling cranium is likely significantly older than 1.15 Ma and nearer in age to that of Dmanisi, and is thus not relevant here. With a cautionary note due to the high distortion of this fossil, the Yunxian crania may show affinities with Homo heidelbergensis ([Stringer, 2002] and [Etler, 2010]; see below), may or may not be derived directly from the population represented by the Gongwangling specimen, and may not be ancestral to the better known H. erectus population at Locality 1, Zhoukoudian.

Although hominins could therefore have dispersed from Africa ca. 1.0 Ma, as suggested by Krause et al. (2010), large-scale dispersals also occurred within Eurasia in the Early Pleistocene. [. . .] Under conditions of repeated fragmentation and recombination, part of the European Early Pleistocene population’s gene pool could have developed in isolation as a separate deme and persisted in time. The mid-Middle Pleistocene dates (0.45 +0.05/−0.10 Ma) for Ceprano (Muttoni et al., 2009), tentatively assigned to H. antecessor (Manzi et al., 2001) because of its primitive morphology and lack of Neanderthal traits (see also Manzi et al., 2010), could support this scenario. Within this frame, 1.0 Ma DNA from Denisova could be another example of lineage persistence in time. Interestingly, the Yunxian evidence has recently been cited as an “ideal candidate” for the ancestor of both the Denisova hominin and H. heidelbergensis in both Europe and Africa, and thus it may also imply a large-scale dispersal westwards after 1.0 Ma (Etler, 2010). Therefore, whilst a dispersal event out of Africa may have occurred ca. 1.0 Ma, dispersal events within Eurasia seem at least as likely. As there is no ancient DNA evidence from Eurasian populations of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, and East Asian H. erectus, it is thus a massive assumption that the source of the Denisova mtDNA was necessarily African.

Did H. heidelbergensis leave Africa ca. 500–300 ka?

A popular scenario is that H. heidelbergensis originated in Africa; some groups left ca. 500 ka, dispersed into Europe and possibly India (Cameron et al., 2004), and thereby introduced an Acheulean bifacial technology into these regions (e.g., Klein, 2009). [. . .] There are several reasons for expressing caution over this scenario. First, archaeologically, there is no need to postulate an immediate African origin for the Acheulean in Europe or India ca. 500 ka, as an Acheulean hand-axe and cleaver tradition with clear African affinities is evidenced at GBY, Israel, ca. 780 ka. The Levant is a far more likely starting point for the Acheulean of Europe and India after 500–600 ka than an East African one. There is also no clear evidence that later Levallois technologies in Eurasia were African in origin (contra Foley and Lahr, 1997), and not independent, indigenous developments within those areas where Acheulean bifacial technologies were used (Tuffreau, 1995). Second, the ambiguities and limitations of the Middle Pleistocene hominin record preclude firm inferences about these events. [. . .] Because the absolute dating of key specimens attributed to H. heidelbergensis or Homo rhodesiensis is still problematic, the relative dating of specimens remains unclear: obvious examples are Kabwe and Sima de los Huesos. At present, it is not even unequivocally clear that the earliest example of H. heidelbergensis (if considered as an Afro-Eurasian lineage) is African rather than European or East Asian. [. . .] As examples of the range of current interpretations on offer, one can argue either that H. heidelbergensis originated in sub-Saharan Africa and dispersed as far as China ([Stringer, 1990], [Stringer, 2002] and [Rightmire, 2001]), or that it originated in China and eventually dispersed as far as sub-Saharan Africa (Etler, 2010)! Alternatively, it has been suggested that African specimens such as Bodo, Kabwe, and Ndutu should be classified as H. rhodesiensis ([McBrearty and Brooks, 2000] and [Hublin, 2001]), and seen as distinct from H. heidelbergensis, which is thus restricted to Eurasia. Consistent with that suggestion, a SW Asian origin of H. heidelbergensis has been proposed, possibly with some traits shared with H. antecessor ([Martinón-Torres et al., 2006], [Martinón-Torres et al., 2007], [Gómez-Robles et al., 2007], [Bermúdez de Castro, 2008], [Carbonell et al., 2008] and [Dennell, 2009]). Here, we are not advocating any one of these scenarios but aim only to point out that there are several alternatives to the one presented by Krause et al. (2010). Based on the differences in the genetic diversity of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis (e.g., [Orlando et al., 2006], [Green et al., 2010] and [Krause et al., 2010]), future genetic studies might contribute to this debate by analysing the theoretical genetic models behind “Africa into Eurasia” and “Eurasia into Africa” scenarios.

The third line of evidence requiring interpretive caution includes faunal data, which indicate that Africa and SW Asia were probably largely isolated by the Saharan-Arabian desert barrier between 500–300 ka. [. . .]

We suggest, therefore, that the evidence that the ancestors of Neanderthals dispersed out of Africa between 500–300 ka is, contra Krause et al. (2010), equivocal on chronometric and morphological grounds, and improbable on archaeological and faunal grounds. [. . .]

Summary

As outlined above, we urge caution over both the interpretative framework of Krause et al. (2010) and their main conclusion. The evidence that the ancestors of Neanderthals (i.e., H. heidelbergensis) left Africa ca. 500–300 ka is currently inconclusive, and the origin of H. heidelbergensis remains enigmatic. Whilst dispersals out of Africa might have occurred ca. 1.0 Ma, large-scale dispersals within Asia were also probable, and thus an Asian origin of the Denisovans cannot be excluded. These issues cannot be resolved without substantial improvements in the dating of key specimens, without an enlarged Asian fossil hominin record (particularly from SW Asia), and without a much more detailed Middle Pleistocene climatic record from SW Asia and NE Africa. Although the Denisova evidence is undoubtedly a fascinating piece in the jigsaw puzzle of human origins, it would be premature at present to determine the part of the picture to which it belongs.

30 comments:

Rassenhygieniker said...

Talking about challenging inconclusive claims of African ancestry, here is my reply to "Polako's findings" http://bga101.blogspot.com/2010/12/traces-of-sub-saharan-african-and.html:

Yet with all of this "negroid admixture" keeping them down, the Olde Stock Americans and British people managed to accomplish in the span of 200 years what Poland failed to do in 1000 years.

And the fact that you reside in a "SSA admixed Australia" instead of the "racially pure Poland' speaks volumes.

Sucks to be you.


Also the "negroid legacy of the Roman Empire" is laughable, especially considering that the legionaries that were sent to Britain were recruits taken amongst the Barbarians (Gauls from Northern France and Germans from Western Germany etc.)

Because as the Romans said, "only Barbarians can defeat other Barbarians":

"At first the German barbarians were excluded from the Roman army but over time the Empire recognized that the only match for the barbarian soldiers was barbarian soldiers fighting for the Empire. As Germans were admitted into the army in the western Empire and became the backbone of the fighting force the
officers commanding them soon were Germans as well. As Germans moved up the command structure a major structural problem developed in the governing of the western Empire. The real power in the Empire came to reside in the German commanders in the army but these individuals were precluded because of their ancestry from holding the high offices in the civil government. This meant that if the German military leaders could not become the legal rulers of the administrative units the next best thing from the viewpoint of the German commanders of the Roman army was to have the civil offices held by weak, incompetent Romans." - John Bagnell Bury, The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians (1928)


The Roman soldiers who invaded Britain were of a similar racial type to the autochthonous Britons:

"Practically all the skulls found in Britain, of whatever age, are of a long-headed type whose closest affinities are with the ancient peoples of north-western Europe. This applies even to the skulls found in long barrows, which are more akin to the Nordic long-headed type than to the Mediterranean.

It is not until the later Roman period, when cremation ceased to be practised and inhumation became general throughout the country, that we can assemble a sufficient mass of evidence to give us a trustworthy general idea of the physique prevalent in ancient Britain. When this happens, we find that the physical type is fairly constant. The head is moderately long, with a flattish top, giving an upright, square, and somewhat low forehead, generally marked by a transverse groove above the eyebrows: the back of the head projects strongly; the cranial capacity is about the same as that of an average modern Englishman, the stature somewhat less; the figure is as a rule sturdy and muscular.

This Romano-British type, as anthropologists call it, is so widely prevalent in the later Roman period that it may safely be regarded as having established itself before the Roman period began. Its closest connexions on the Continent are with Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and northern France; and it has survived on a considerable scale in modern England. Sir Arthur Keith, the chief living authority on this subject, raises the question: 'Do people . . . of the Romano-British type occur in our modern population? I would answer that inquiry with a confident Yes — in very considerable numbers, particularly amongst the English middle classes.'

Rassenhygieniker said...

Talking about challenging inconclusive claims of African ancestry, here is my reply to "Polako's findings" http://bga101.blogspot.com/2010/12/traces-of-sub-saharan-african-and.html:

Yet with all of this "negroid admixture" keeping them down, the Olde Stock Americans and British people managed to accomplish in the span of 200 years what Poland failed to do in 1000 years.

And the fact that you reside in a "SSA admixed Australia" instead of the "racially pure Poland' speaks volumes.

Sucks to be you.


Also the "negroid legacy of the Roman Empire" is laughable, especially considering that the legionaries that were sent to Britain were recruits taken amongst the Barbarians (Gauls from Northern France and Germans from Western Germany etc.)

Because as the Romans said, "only Barbarians can defeat other Barbarians":

"At first the German barbarians were excluded from the Roman army but over time the Empire recognized that the only match for the barbarian soldiers was barbarian soldiers fighting for the Empire. As Germans were admitted into the army in the western Empire and became the backbone of the fighting force the
officers commanding them soon were Germans as well. As Germans moved up the command structure a major structural problem developed in the governing of the western Empire. The real power in the Empire came to reside in the German commanders in the army but these individuals were precluded because of their ancestry from holding the high offices in the civil government. This meant that if the German military leaders could not become the legal rulers of the administrative units the next best thing from the viewpoint of the German commanders of the Roman army was to have the civil offices held by weak, incompetent Romans." - John Bagnell Bury, The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians (1928)


The Roman soldiers who invaded Britain were of a similar racial type to the autochthonous Britons:

"Practically all the skulls found in Britain, of whatever age, are of a long-headed type whose closest affinities are with the ancient peoples of north-western Europe. This applies even to the skulls found in long barrows, which are more akin to the Nordic long-headed type than to the Mediterranean.

It is not until the later Roman period, when cremation ceased to be practised and inhumation became general throughout the country, that we can assemble a sufficient mass of evidence to give us a trustworthy general idea of the physique prevalent in ancient Britain. When this happens, we find that the physical type is fairly constant. The head is moderately long, with a flattish top, giving an upright, square, and somewhat low forehead, generally marked by a transverse groove above the eyebrows: the back of the head projects strongly; the cranial capacity is about the same as that of an average modern Englishman, the stature somewhat less; the figure is as a rule sturdy and muscular.

Rassenhygieniker said...

This Romano-British type, as anthropologists call it, is so widely prevalent in the later Roman period that it may safely be regarded as having established itself before the Roman period began. Its closest connexions on the Continent are with Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and northern France; and it has survived on a considerable scale in modern England. Sir Arthur Keith, the chief living authority on this subject, raises the question: 'Do people . . . of the Romano-British type occur in our modern population? I would answer that inquiry with a confident Yes — in very considerable numbers, particularly amongst the English middle classes.'

Reinforcements came almost exclusively from Germany and to a less extent from the upper Danubian provinces. The influx of German soldiers, whether individually or (still more) in blocks, is shown to have been very considerable in the late second century and early third, after which inscriptions fail us. In general, units of the Roman army, from whatever source they were originally derived, tended to settle down and take root in the country where they were quartered.

The results of anthropological study are curiously uniform and definite. The Romano-British physical type, whose general features have already been described in an earlier chapter, occurs all over Britain in skeletons of the third and fourth centuries. It is not confined to the native villages; skeletons found in villas and in the cemeteries of towns show exactly the same type. The importance of this fact appears when it is recollected that the native Romans or central Italians of the time belonged to an altogether different type, being as definitely round-headed as the Britons were long-headed; while other inhabitants of the Mediterranean region such as Maltese, Sicilians, and ancient inhabitants of Egypt and Spain, though they resembled the Britons in being long-headed, differed sharply from them in the very much smaller size of their skulls. Thus the absolute measurements of the average British skull in length and breadth differentiate it clearly from one belonging to the so-called Mediterranean race, while the proportion between these measurements distinguishes it no less clearly from one of the Alpine race, to which the Romans belonged.

When allowance is made for normal variation from the average, skulls of the Roman period found in Britain belong with surprising uniformity to the standard Romano-British type. Even in the legionary cemetery at York, from which we possess a large number of bones, there is no trace of the Alpine type to which a large number of the Claudian legionaries must have belonged, and which is admirably represented by the portrait-tombstone of the centurion Favonius Facilis at Colchester. In other words, by the time cremation gave place to inhumation, the effect of that Alpine immigration on the physique even of the legions themselves had disappeared, and even the army was no less British in physical type than the ordinary townsfolk or villa-dwellers or peasants.

The legionary cemetery at York has yielded a large number of male skulls which, though not very different from Romano-British, are in size and shape identical with Anglo-Saxon. They are, no doubt, to be explained by reference to the reinforcements sent at various times, as we have already seen, to the British frontier armies from the Rhineland." - Robin George Collingwood and John Nowell Linton Myres, Roman Britain and English Settlements (1936)

Rassenhygieniker said...

This Romano-British type, as anthropologists call it, is so widely prevalent in the later Roman period that it may safely be regarded as having established itself before the Roman period began. Its closest connexions on the Continent are with Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and northern France; and it has survived on a considerable scale in modern England. Sir Arthur Keith, the chief living authority on this subject, raises the question: 'Do people . . . of the Romano-British type occur in our modern population? I would answer that inquiry with a confident Yes — in very considerable numbers, particularly amongst the English middle classes.'

Reinforcements came almost exclusively from Germany and to a less extent from the upper Danubian provinces. The influx of German soldiers, whether individually or (still more) in blocks, is shown to have been very considerable in the late second century and early third, after which inscriptions fail us. In general, units of the Roman army, from whatever source they were originally derived, tended to settle down and take root in the country where they were quartered.

The results of anthropological study are curiously uniform and definite. The Romano-British physical type, whose general features have already been described in an earlier chapter, occurs all over Britain in skeletons of the third and fourth centuries. It is not confined to the native villages; skeletons found in villas and in the cemeteries of towns show exactly the same type. The importance of this fact appears when it is recollected that the native Romans or central Italians of the time belonged to an altogether different type, being as definitely round-headed as the Britons were long-headed; while other inhabitants of the Mediterranean region such as Maltese, Sicilians, and ancient inhabitants of Egypt and Spain, though they resembled the Britons in being long-headed, differed sharply from them in the very much smaller size of their skulls. Thus the absolute measurements of the average British skull in length and breadth differentiate it clearly from one belonging to the so-called Mediterranean race, while the proportion between these measurements distinguishes it no less clearly from one of the Alpine race, to which the Romans belonged.

Rassenhygieniker said...

This Romano-British type, as anthropologists call it, is so widely prevalent in the later Roman period that it may safely be regarded as having established itself before the Roman period began. Its closest connexions on the Continent are with Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and northern France; and it has survived on a considerable scale in modern England. Sir Arthur Keith, the chief living authority on this subject, raises the question: 'Do people . . . of the Romano-British type occur in our modern population? I would answer that inquiry with a confident Yes — in very considerable numbers, particularly amongst the English middle classes.'

Reinforcements came almost exclusively from Germany and to a less extent from the upper Danubian provinces. The influx of German soldiers, whether individually or (still more) in blocks, is shown to have been very considerable in the late second century and early third, after which inscriptions fail us. In general, units of the Roman army, from whatever source they were originally derived, tended to settle down and take root in the country where they were quartered.

Rassenhygieniker said...

This Romano-British type, as anthropologists call it, is so widely prevalent in the later Roman period that it may safely be regarded as having established itself before the Roman period began. Its closest connexions on the Continent are with Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and northern France; and it has survived on a considerable scale in modern England. Sir Arthur Keith, the chief living authority on this subject, raises the question: 'Do people . . . of the Romano-British type occur in our modern population? I would answer that inquiry with a confident Yes — in very considerable numbers, particularly amongst the English middle classes.'

Rassenhygieniker said...

Reinforcements came almost exclusively from Germany and to a less extent from the upper Danubian provinces. The influx of German soldiers, whether individually or (still more) in blocks, is shown to have been very considerable in the late second century and early third, after which inscriptions fail us. In general, units of the Roman army, from whatever source they were originally derived, tended to settle down and take root in the country where they were quartered.

Rassenhygieniker said...

The results of anthropological study are curiously uniform and definite. The Romano-British physical type, whose general features have already been described in an earlier chapter, occurs all over Britain in skeletons of the third and fourth centuries. It is not confined to the native villages; skeletons found in villas and in the cemeteries of towns show exactly the same type. The importance of this fact appears when it is recollected that the native Romans or central Italians of the time belonged to an altogether different type, being as definitely round-headed as the Britons were long-headed; while other inhabitants of the Mediterranean region such as Maltese, Sicilians, and ancient inhabitants of Egypt and Spain, though they resembled the Britons in being long-headed, differed sharply from them in the very much smaller size of their skulls. Thus the absolute measurements of the average British skull in length and breadth differentiate it clearly from one belonging to the so-called Mediterranean race, while the proportion between these measurements distinguishes it no less clearly from one of the Alpine race, to which the Romans belonged.

When allowance is made for normal variation from the average, skulls of the Roman period found in Britain belong with surprising uniformity to the standard Romano-British type. Even in the legionary cemetery at York, from which we possess a large number of bones, there is no trace of the Alpine type to which a large number of the Claudian legionaries must have belonged, and which is admirably represented by the portrait-tombstone of the centurion Favonius Facilis at Colchester. In other words, by the time cremation gave place to inhumation, the effect of that Alpine immigration on the physique even of the legions themselves had disappeared, and even the army was no less British in physical type than the ordinary townsfolk or villa-dwellers or peasants.

The legionary cemetery at York has yielded a large number of male skulls which, though not very different from Romano-British, are in size and shape identical with Anglo-Saxon. They are, no doubt, to be explained by reference to the reinforcements sent at various times, as we have already seen, to the British frontier armies from the Rhineland." - Robin George Collingwood and John Nowell Linton Myres, Roman Britain and English Settlements (1936)

Rassenhygieniker said...

In this thread there is a discussion and a link to a study that disprove the intellectually dishonest claims of "Polako's findings" about how all the british people are mixed due to the "great negroid legacy of the Roman Empire".

As I already pointed out yesterday, the legionaries sent to the UK were recruited amongst the Barbarians. There may have been some mixed breeds that the romans sent out to Britain and as a result very small amount of Britons such as the Revis familly line may have negroid or mongoloid admixture as a result.

And that is the difference between the reality and Polako's claims on how "Britons and Americans are mixed".

This reminds me of another one of his "findings" were he "discovered" that Germans had a high amount of "jewish admixture", while in contrast Poland had close to none. Which is just not believable, since any historian would tell you that Poland acted as the European Israel to jews, just as Romania acted as the European India to gypsies.


http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1048324

"Hamar Fox said...

The finding was actually that non-European admixture in Britons was low (the sample was over 2000 males), paternally less than 1 in 1000 haplogroups are non-European in origin, maternally, it's roughly 0.4 - 0.7%. But of course the media misrepresented the conclusion of the study and claimed 'we're all mixed!'."


Out of this 2000 british male sample, the people who had the surname "Revis" who's origin comes from an East Yorkshire village had sub-saharan ancestry, the rest of the 2000 had none.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590664/

"Our study shows that a globally rare Y chromosome type, belonging to the deepest-rooting African branch of the Y phylogeny, has been present in northern England since at least the mid eighteenth century. Haplogroup E3a is by far the most frequent Y-chromosomal lineage in Africa, existing at 48% in a continent-wide sample of 1122 chromosomes, so we would expect any substantial past immigration from Africa to Britain to have left examples of chromosomes belonging to this common haplogroup. However, a survey of 1772 Y chromosomes from the British Isles found none, and they are also absent from our control sample of 421 chromosomes."


Which is not suprising seeing as I already explained the Romans, may have had a foot in York but as history, anthopology and genetics proves the portion of non-whites from the roman garrison sent to Britain was next to nil, as most of the force were mainly taken from Rhineland and northern France.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Polako said...

And let me return the favor by revealing that I'm now regularly finding massive Sub-Saharan African segments in many white Americans with no known SSA ancestry. Such segments do not appear in native Europeans."

Such Sub-Saharn African segment does not appear in native Europeans? Yet, was the premise of his post not about claiming that British people (whom white Americans are descended from) carry sub-saharan admixture?

Looks like Polako is even unable to keep up with his own lies.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it their major task to destroy all Poles." - Heinrich Himmler.

"Poles are cattle in human form." - Johann Georg Forster

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to put all Poles in oven?" - Dr. Hermann Voss

"Poles are more animals than human beings." - Joseph Goebbels

"Poland is an historic failure, which has won her freedom not by her own exertions, but by the blood of others." - David Lloyd-George

"We have already formed displacement policies regarding the Polish population within Poland; the ultimate task is to wipe out the Poles and repopulate lands that rightfully belong to Germany" - Adolf Hitler

Anonymous said...

Oh goodness gracious me, Rassie is not only starting to obsessively attack 'Polacks' now (i.e - 'Slantoids') he is even 'duking' it out and attacking another Nordicist (albeit a Slavic one).

Didn't you get the memo from Kemp, Rassa? Poles are not only 'certifiably White', but they're one of the 'most homogeneous populations' in all Europe.

Unlike many countries in Western Europe, Poland did not encourage immigration from anywhere, and as such retains an extremely high degree of racial homogeneity. The only slight admixture which occurred amongst a very small number of Slavics in Poland was a comparatively tiny amount of Asiatic invaders who briefly occupied the country in the 1200s.

This influence was however extremely limited, and the overwhelming racial type found in Poland is still Nordic, or what is known as Dinaric, a combination of Nordic and Alpine sub-racial types.


http://www.white-history.com/hwr33i.htm

Anonymous said...

Oh, and btw Rassa, good job on keeping the Hollywood-kartoon-Nazi meme going on German-Slav relations.

Anonymous said...

Assenhygieniker thinks it's the Slavs that are inferior?!?

Latvia runs out of patience with boozy British tourists | World news | guardian.co.uk

Stag parties in search of cheap beer who 'piss about all the time' are putting off other visitors, Riga's mayor complains

Britons on stag parties to the Latvian capital, Riga, will not be welcomed with open arms, according to its mayor.

The city has run out of patience with unruly British tourists who head there for boozy breaks, putting off other potential visitors, the mayor, Nils Usakovs, has told a Latvian magazine.

Riga is a popular destination for stag parties, along with Budapest, Prague, Bratislava, Tallinn and a handful of other central and eastern European cities.

But rowdy parties in search of cheap beer are deterring a wider range of visitors as Latvia struggles to fight off a deepening recession.

Usakovs told Rigas Laiks magazine: "The only problem is that we have a large share of those British tourists.

"If we also had other tourists, then British visitors who piss about all the time would not be as noticeable. Let's not be politically correct – unfortunately, this is their speciality."

The biggest complaint is tourists who urinate on Riga's Freedom Monument, honouring soldiers killed during the Latvian war of independence, according to the mayor.

Visitors have regularly been arrested and fined for relieving themselves on the 42-metre monument, or climbing on it naked to pose for pictures.

Last year, the country's then interior minister, Mareks Seglins, hit out at "English pigs" for being a "dirty, hoggish people" after a British tourist was sentenced to five days in prison when he was caught urinating on the monument.

The president, Valdis Zatlers, condemned his negative comments.

A spokeswoman for Usakovs said Riga's problems started with the arrival of low-budget airlines.

"The British first started to make bachelor parties, and the most popular thing was using our monument of liberty as a toilet. We have a stigma about British tourists. They are probably not the ones we want to see," she said.

"We are thinking about making a tourist police who will be located in the old town and will pay more attention to these tourist issues."

====

"English pigs" for being a "dirty, hoggish people"

Yup, Chavs and 'Neds' indeed.

**Seriously, W-T-F happened to "Great" Britain?!?!?

Rassenhygieniker said...

You dumb greasy wog, Latvians aren't Slavs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states

Destroy the slantoid mongrels, beware the yellow terror, kill the Scourge of God!

http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/

"This is an ideological battle and a struggle of races. Here in this struggle stands National Socialism: an ideology based on the value of our Germanic, Nordic blood. Here stands a world as we have conceived it: Beautiful, decent, socially equal, that perhaps, in a few instances, is still burdened by shortcomings, but as a whole, a happy, beautiful world full of culture; this what our Germany is like. On the other side stands a population of 180 million, a mixture of races, whose very names are unpronounceable, and whose physique is such that one can shoot them down without pity and compassion. These animals, that torture and ill-treat every prisoner from our side, every wounded man that they come across and do not treat them the way decent soldiers would, you will see for yourself.When you, my men, fight over there in the East, you are carrying on the same struggle, against the same subhumanity, the same inferior races that at one time appeared under the name of Huns, another time- 1,000 years ago at the time of King Henry and Otto I- under the name of Magyars, another time under the name of Tartars, and still another time under the name of Genghis Khan and the Mongols. Today they appear as Russians under the political banner of Bolshevism." - Heinrich Himmler

Anonymous said...

Destroy the slantoid mongrels, beware the yellow terror, kill the Scourge of God!

And your still a dirty, sub-humanoid CHAV

LOL!

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

And your still a dirty, sub-humanoid CHAV"

Oh my, chav this chav that, you are like a nigger who thinks that throwing around the words "cracker" and "honkie" is offensive to white people.

Anonymous said...

More beautiful Chavs

*That's probably Rass in the background with the bleached-blond hair - you know, to 'Nordify' his repulsive look.

Anonymous said...

Yet even more "beautiful" Chavvies

*Some are quite swarthy, aren't they?

Anonymous said...

Destroy the slantoid mongrels, beware the yellow terror, kill the Scourge of God! @The Idiot

Polish Europeans are way more civilized than the racial rabble in this 'country' -

Welcome to binge Britain: Polish photographer documents four years of drunken revelry in Cardiff | Mail Online

As a seasoned traveller, Maciej Dakowicz was keen to get a few snaps of local life during his stay in Britain.

His resulting picture album, however, could do with an X certificate. Taken over a series of Friday and Saturday nights on the streets of Cardiff, the Polish student's images provide a shocking insight into alcohol-fuelled debauchery in the Welsh capital.

The unique collection is aptly named 'Cardiff At Night,' and includes a photo of a man walking across a street, his face and shirt covered in blood.

Another captures a reveller seemingly passed out next to a pool of his vomit.

First taking up photography in 2003, Maciej has travelled to over 20 countries but says he has never encountered anything like the scenes he recorded here.

...

'Everywhere I go i like to take pictures of the people and surroundings. I had never seen such scenes in Poland or any other country I had visited before.

'But what I have seen in my time in the UK has been something completely new to me.'

The images come at a time when Britain's binge drinking culture is under scrutiny.


*Good grief, this plague even spread to remote, little Wales.

Independence for Wales, ASAP!

*BTW, some of you 'Brits' could surely use a diet.

Anonymous said...

Congrats, n/a. Your blog has been wrecked by the incessant trolling of this asperger's retard, R... (no fucking way I'm typing all of his pretentious handle). And I see he now thinks we ought to take the word of famous coward Heinrich Himmler as gospel truth. Jesus fucking Christ what a fag.

Anonymous said...

It's obvious that this troll is either a.) an autistic sperg with a fucked up obsession OR b.) a hasbara kike paid to discredit online racialism. And notice the inordinate amount of time he spends online - one thing is for certain, folks: he's a freeloading bum in addition to malicious kike or walking abortion.

Anonymous said...

...whose physique is such that one can shoot them down without pity and compassion. These animals, that torture and ill-treat every prisoner from our side, every wounded man that they come across and do not treat them the way decent soldiers would, you will see for yourself.

Himmler was such a hypocrite.

He says that "one", meaning German soldiers, can shoot down Russians without pity or compassion.

Then he goes on to whine that the Russians ill-treated the Germans soldiers they captured.

Who can blame the Russians for treating the Germans like that, when those swine went around shooting down Russians [including civilians] without pity or compassion.

Anonymous said...

When you, my men, fight over there in the East, you are carrying on the same struggle, against the same subhumanity, the same inferior races that at one time appeared under the name of Huns, another time- 1,000 years ago at the time of King Henry and Otto I- under the name of Magyars, another time under the name of Tartars, and still another time under the name of Genghis Khan and the Mongols.

Himmler also wasn't much of a historian or anthropologist!

Russians and Mongols aren't even close to being the same thing.

And whatever the Huns were, the chances that they were interchangeable with Russians are nil.

Typical Nordicist hallucinatory, Himmler was!

He really was the Arthur Kemp of his time, may God damn them both.

Anonymous said...

Himmler wasn't much of a Nordic himself - http://www.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/heinrich-himmler.jpg

Can we say "Subhuman Swarthoid"?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't go that far, he does seem to be more Alpinid than Nordid, but Germany is often a mix of these two especially in the south.

Some interesting quotes from Herr Himmler:

Psychology of the Slavs

Now, back to the Slavs! I consider it necessary to speak to each other about this once again. Whether it's Peter the Great or the late Czars, whether it's Lenin or Stalin, they know their own people. They are perfectly well aware that the concepts of "loyalty", "never betraying", "never conspiring", have no place in the Russian vocabulary.

Whatever people may tell you about the Russians, it's all true. It's true that some of the Russians are fervently pious, and fervently believe in the Mother of God of the Khasans or someplace else, it's absolutely true. It's true that the Volga boatmen sing beautifully; it's true that the Russian of today, in modern times, is a good improviser and good technician. It's true, for the most part, that he's even a lover of children. It's true that he can work very hard. And it's just as true that he is stinking lazy. It's just as true that he is an uninhibited beast, who can torture and torment other people in ways a devil would never permit himself to think of. It's just as true that the Russian, high or low, is inclined to the perversest of things, even devouring his comrades or keeping his neighbour's liver in his lunch bag. It's all part of the scale of feelings and values of the Slavic peoples. It's often purely a matter of chance which lot he draws; and to people who don't know the beast, he is often a very great riddle: what is the fellow up to now?

The Russians themselves know each other very well, and have invented a very practical system, whether it was the Czars with the Ochrana, or Mr. Lenin and Mr. Stalin with the GPU or the NKVD. When four Russians get together, with little father, little mother, and their little children, not one of the 4 or 5 knows who is betraying whom at the moment: which one is the informer betraying the father now: is it the mother, or the daughter? And who, in return, is betraying them? In doubtful cases there may be two, even three, informers in this family. I am not exaggerating. This remark is entirely accurate with regards to the city. In the countryside, our comrades who have been over there in the East can confirm that there are still 20 or 30 NKVD informers and agents in every village, even after the withdrawal of the Bolsheviks. This ensures, to an absolute certainty, that no conspiracy can get started, because everything will still be reported to the top by means of this informer apparatus. Then comes the pistol or deportation, and that is how this entire people must be governed.

Russian soldiers on our side

One thing is a matter of course in this war: it is better for a Russian to die than a German. If we use the Russians, then they must be mixed with Germans in a ratio of 1:2 to 1:3. The best thing is to use individual Russians; then you can drive with them in a tank. One Russian with 2 or 3 Germans in a tank, magnificent, nothing wrong. But you must never let one Russian meet other tank-driving Russians, otherwise the boys will conspire. But if you wish to have Russian-only companies for some reason, then be careful, gentlemen -- and that is not just a thought, gentlemen, that is an order, gentlemen -- they must have their informer apparatus, their NKVD, in this company. Then you can sleep in peace. Otherwise, this is one of the earliest warnings I've issued, take care that these sub-humans always look at you; they must always look their superior in the eye. It's like with animals. As long as an animal looks his tamer in the eye, he won't try anything. But have no doubt about one thing: he is a beast. We will able to utilize the Russians with this attitude; with this attitude we shall be superior to the Slavs at all times. But not with any other attitude.

Anonymous said...

The Italian theatre of war

Now for Italy, the other theatre of war! There must be no doubt in our minds that the weakness of this people lies in their blood, in their race. In considering this problem, we must distinguish between that which is comfortable or uncomfortable for us today, and that which will be comfortable or uncomfortable for us in the future. Italy was a weak ally, beginning with Greece and Africa, and ending with Russia. There is, after all, no nation which hasn't thrashed the Italians, from whom the Italians haven't taken a beating. The Italians, we can see this right now, will be considered the most contemptible people in the world; no one, no Albanian, no Montenegrin, no Frenchman, no American, no Englishman, no Russian, no German, will have any respect for them, since they have proven themselves everywhere to be cowards, as soldiers, as men. That is the most contemptible judgement that one can hand down against a people and a race. We must therefore distinguish between that which is comfortable for us today and that which would be comfortable for us in the future. If the Italians were a neighbour truly related to us in terms of inner qualities, then it would be magnificent if Italy had remained strong. But with a consistently weak neighbour who has no resistance to anything, the situation as it is, I must say, is much better. It is considerably better. At the moment, it is uncomfortable; it came at an inconvenient time. If the betrayal had come a quarter of a year later, it would have been better for us. But you can't hope for that in war. Fate simply doesn't ask what you want. It throws you heavy punches. In the long-distant future, we will be thankful to Fate and to God that it happened as it did.

The failure of the Italians

I've already said that the Italians have failed everywhere. Pantelleria, to take only one characteristic example, capitulated with 12,000 men after the loss of 36 killed and 120 wounded over the course of six weeks. They had enough water -- the report of the honourable commander of Pantelleria was not true -- for the garrison of 12,000 men, probably for another 10 to 12 days. I personally believe they had enough water for even longer. The island could simply not be taken, every expert says so; even the airplane hangars were underground, built into rock casemates. They simply couldn't be gotten out of there. Something must be said here: the surrender of Pantelleria was tragic insofar as the Duce consolidated the island, exactly as he built the Italian air force, exactly as he created the Italian navy. That navy was his work, his navy. But these people, one can really say, are still Italians after all; the Duce is the only one who embodies and bears in himself the great Roman tradition.

The Italian army in Sicily didn't defend itself. It showed the white flag everywhere, right away. Then came the betrayal. That was very hard for us, since we were in the midst of transporting our divisions. Based on news reports, I was already convinced of the disintegration of Italy one and half years ago. The army was infected with Communism and was sympathetic to the Anglo-Saxons. We couldn't carry out the counter stroke before enough German divisions were over the Alps.

Rassenhygieniker said...

"Anonymous said...

Himmler also wasn't much of a historian or anthropologist!

Russians and Mongols aren't even close to being the same thing.

And whatever the Huns were, the chances that they were interchangeable with Russians are nil."


Simply, the original Aryan population of Southern Europe and Eastern Europe absorded non-white strains through the last centuries and became mongrelized as a result, while the ones who were in the center remained pure (Germanics, Celtics). In the South there is the niggers and the Southern Europeans are their bastards while in the East there is the chinks and the Eastern Europeans are their bastards. Calling Eastern Europeans slantoids is as viable as calling Southern Europeans swarthoids.


Soviet soldiers:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4884/r12r12.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8394/r13r13.jpg

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8341/r14r14.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6599/r15r15.jpg


Bolshevik leaders:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/305/r16r16.jpg

http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/9545/r17r17.jpg

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5554/r18r18.jpg

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/5126/r19r19.jpg

http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/1869/r20r20.jpg


http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2005/11/russian-alcoholism-and-mongoloid-gene.html

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troeplate03.htm

http://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/2009/11/berlin-after-it-fell-to-russians-in.html

Anonymous said...

Trotsky was a Jew, not a Russian.

Rassenhygieniker said...

That was not Trotsky, it was Kalinin.