The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man

Kennewick Man ancient DNA. The paper is openly accessible. Results pretty much as I expected.
We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide.
The paper is marred by strained, politically-motivated attempts to tie Kennewick Man specifically to "the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man". So those interested in aboriginal American population structure are probably better off ignoring much of the authors's narrative and looking directly at the data.


Anonymous said...

oops. apparently the duke of sutherland sold before what i expect is my source was published

BUT! the duke of buccleuch went from second largest individual land owner in 1872 to the largest such land owner in 2010.

is 'mer'ca-stan so different from Great Shitain?

oh...and one of those thorougbred breeders of thorouhgbreds, Charles N. "Chunky" Woodward, still owned the largest ranch in Canada and the second largest in N America at the time of his death in 1990.

sounds TOOS to me.

are you a chink or what?

n/a said...


Being the largest private landowner in Britain doesn't put the Duke of Buccleuch in the top 20 in the UK in terms of personal wealth. Being the largest landowner in London barely puts the Duke of Westminster in the top ten of the 2015 Sunday Times Rich List. In a 2014 Forbes list of British billionaires, only two out of 41 spots are occupied by aristocrats.

Regardless of what fraction of British land they still own, the British aristocracy own a much smaller share of the land than they did a century ago; and land makes up a much smaller fraction of total wealth.

oh...and one of those thorougbred breeders of thorouhgbreds, Charles N. "Chunky" Woodward, still owned the largest ranch in Canada and the second largest in N America at the time of his death in 1990.

You claimed "many" of the largest American fortunes originated before 1900. Now you're citing a Canadian . . . whose fortune did not originate before 1900 (his family's stores were barely getting started around 1900, and he apparently made most of his money himself; he certainly did not inherit the ranch; also, it seems he bred quarter horses, not thoroughbreds). His children ended up selling the ranch to Bernie Ebbers (noted felon and son of a traveling salesman) and as far as I'm aware don't appear toward the top of any Canadian wealth rankings.

Anonymous said...


your comment is too nauseating to read, so i didn't read it, but...

OBVIOUSLY the political and economic power of the TOOS is MUCH MUCH LESS than it used to be even in the 70s.

that's NOT what Fussel, Angeleno arraviste that he was, meant.


not even in les etats unis merdeux.

there ARE impecunious GENTLEMEN even in the US.

your idea of class is FAR TOO AMERICAN and PROLE.

Anonymous said...

the Thurston Howell III trope was ALWAYS...



a LIE or, at least, an 'mer'ca-stan. (a lie which jews are particularly likely to promote.)


MORE on the IRISH...

though its CEO is a short inbred looking Jew, the current and former chairmen of GS have been IRISH.

Anonymous said...

what is class?

'mer'ca-stanis want to flatten and absolutize everything.

all that class amounts to is...

with whom do you feel most comfortable?

there needn't be a rank ordering of these "comfortability classes".

people feel most comfortable with people who are like themselves in as many particulars as possible.




if i could find a girl with my background i'd be turned on, even if she was a little uglier than me (than I is a genteelism).

'mner'ca-stan, the "universal nation"...which isn't universal or a nation, not to mention that "universal nation" is a contradiction in terms...can be personified accurately as wanting to FLATTEN the whole world...flatten Wright's "rugged landscape".

america is by nature/necessarily...


the american conservative can't be an exception.

and the british are the shittiest people in western europe, so naturally their diaspora is father like the extent that the son identifies with the father.

Anonymous said...

so, for example, some relatives sold their winery in two parts, the first for 80m and the second for 100m.

but even though we're from the same 18th c family, even though my dad was a lawyer and harvard grad (and loser POS), and so money in my family...or rather no inherited money beyond a few hundred grand.

with whom would i feel most comfortable? where's my "place" in 'mer'can society? perhaps i have none...


but the ascendancy of the pushy obedient strivers in 'mer'ca-stan (prof steve shoe is the epitome) means that people like me DON'T EXIST.

"The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."

and lapham said the same in his movie:







Anonymous said...

and if one had a paranoid bent, he might wonder how veridical forbes's list really is.

how could john d.'s fortune go from 300b in today's dollars to 10b in today's dollars for the whole family.

and where are the fields? marshall field, according to forbes, is the ninth richest american ever.

btw, ;) my dad's uncle was married to marshall field iii's daughter.

where'd all that money go?

spendthrifts or poorly diversified investments? what? it's not hard to keep up with inflation for God's sake!

or maybe forbes is full of it.

n/a said...



I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with. But Fussell explicitly defines his "top out of sight" class to only include people who "live on inherited wealth entirely". That in the real world class borders defined socially (who affiliates with whom) are rarely that sharp with respect to wealth does not change the fact that this is how Fussell chose to define this category, which he invented.

"there needn't be a rank ordering"

Regardless of whether or not you think there "need be", there traditionally has been, in every even minimally advanced society I'm aware of. Explicitly in terms of some combination of wealth/power and ancestry/upbringing. Societies are hierarchical, and where you or your family fit in various hierarchies also plays a major role in determining who you're comfortable with and who is comfortable with you.

Obviously, what's left of the old American upper class will also have many declining members, and current American elites have little connection to the old American upper class. This is a point I've been making for years.

"how could john d.'s fortune go from 300b in today's dollars to 10b in today's dollars for the whole family."

To start with, much of it was given away. Nor even in the absence of philanthropy is it a remotely trivial matter to hold on to wealth over spans of generations. The tendency is for large concentrations of wealth to evaporate, not to be effortlessly maintained.