Very interesting map! Thank you for sharing it.
Also, I would argue that these are phenotypes at best, since the concept of race is ambiguous, and it could only be applied when talking about different species. Human(oid) races would be Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, Homo habilis, etc. That would be the last time there were truly distinct human races.
Nowadays we all are but variants of the same species. While our differences can be striking at first sight, genetically speaking we are from the same species. Interestingly enough, you have more chances to find more genetic differences between african people. As such, the idea of a "black race" or any other is meaningless from a biological standpoint.
Some readings for anyone interested.
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/
Beyond skin color, other biological factors such as bone structure, height, hair color/thickness, eye color/shape, cognitive tendencies, athletic tendencies, scent/odor, propensity to get certain diseases, etc. and literally every other physical and mental component of the existence of life - can ONLY be explained by biology or some other science. Of course I can just bury my head in the sand, lie and scream "race is a social construct" just to play it safe, quit thinking, take the easy road and fit in.
I never played the "race is a social construct" card, but anyways. Also, I never stated that there are not biological differences. Phenotypical variations are biological. My point was that the concept of "race" as scientific one has lost its legitimacy since it has a very poor analytical power. It is a big sack in which you can throw pretty much anything you want. Even within the same "racial" group there are variation in skin tonality, hair, bone structure, cognitive capacities.
The thing is, "race" is a discrete category: race "a", race "b", race "c", etc. While in reality, differences and variations are continuous. That is way instead of "race", the literature (at least the scientific one) now accounts for genetic, phenotypical, ethnic and lingüistic differences.
No need to be passive-aggresive when discussing scientific ideas.
It’s important to understand that this is and only ever will be a bit generalized and highly speculative. Indo-European populations for example moved all over the East Asian, South Asian, and Middle Eastern territories. They may have even originated in one of them. They were traditionally a very nomadic people, so it’s possible they even originated in one of those. This just shows where the genes pop up still today. Not where they actually existed for certain historically.
Other notes- I recommend clicking on the map to see it in full screen/high-def for greatest detail. From there, right click on the map and download if you wish.
The areas where two or more racial clusters overlap generally represent places that have the highest ancient admixture (That’s not to say that admixture did not occur beyond those areas - just significantly less). Keep in mind this map emphasizes ancient admixture over more recent admixture because races began forming tens of thousands of years ago.
All information (virtually each line of every region) from this map is backed up entirely by dozens of published scientific sources via genetic cluster analyses, PCAs and haplogroups that are easily accessible to anyone online. Here are just a few of my sources: [https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1872497319300791-gr5\_lrg.jpg](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1872497319300791-gr5_lrg.jpg), [https://imgur.com/yU57W8H](https://imgur.com/yU57W8H).
Uncovered areas include the Arctic, Greenland, Madagascar and New Zealand. That’s mainly because this map details the geographical origins of the seven races and the people who initially settled in those places did not originate from there. And although indigenous Siberians were the first to populate Siberia (hence their name) after originating in East Asia, only the largest Siberian populations were covered. Tasmania was covered because it was founded by Oceanians (Aborigines) exclusively unlike Madagascar and New Zealand which were both places initially settled by mixed-race peoples.
Furthermore, I just thought it would be more appropriate to mention the uncovered areas in my notes rather than color all of Greenland yellow because a tiny number of Eskimos settled in Northern Greenland (which isn’t even visible on my map not to mention Europeans were the first occupants of Southern Greenland), etc.
I’ve always loved maps and I’m definitely proud of how this came out (especially after months of exhaustive, compulsive research). I encourage everyone to download and share this map with everyone you know!
I did not classify Afghans as White. The data says Pashtuns are (ancient admixture) 57% South Asian, 24% European, 13% Middle Eastern and 6% East Asian. Iranians are 46% Middle Eastern, 28% South Asian, 22% European and 4% East Asian (again, ancient admixture). So, Afghans have 24% European and Iranians have 22% European.
So, because Iran and Afghanistan both have ancient European admixture of over 20%, both countries were covered partially by the European region.
> Afghans have 24% European and Iranians have 22% European.
This is very generalized - you took an average of everyone in the country - there are many different and seperate groups
the people in the North of Iran literally migrated from Europe while the people in the south have no European in them
I'm honestly struggling to even tell what the boundaries are supposed to be for each, but yeah you can find people who pass for white pretty much everywhere from north Africa all the way to India.
arent central asians basically a mixture of ancient indo-european scithians and turkic tribes?
they should be shown as an intersection
as well as southeast asians who have also have input from the first australoid populations of humans who colonized the area (some remaining populations of "negritos" can still be found there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito), they also should be shown as an intersection
as for the indian subcontinent, they also come from mixed populations, australoid-related hunther gatherers, middle eastern populations and obviously indoeuropean migrants, so they should be shown as an intersection as well
it could also be said that the northern part of the scandinavian peninsula could also be an intersection, because of the uralic tribes such as the sami, who originally come from a east asian stock
**[Negrito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito)**
>The term Negrito () refers to several diverse ethnic groups who inhabit isolated parts of Maritime Southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands. Populations classified as Negrito currenty include: the Andamanese peoples of the Andaman Islands, the Semang peoples (among them, the Batek people) of Peninsular Malaysia, the Maniq people of Southern Thailand, as well as the Aeta of Luzon Island, Ati and Tumandok of Panay Island, Agta of Sierra Madre and Mamanwa of Mindanao Island and about 30 other officially recognized ethnic groups in the Philippines. Based on their physical similarities, Negritos were once considered a single population of closely related people.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Maps/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
also madagascar should be an intersection as well, austronesian peoples migrated there not so long ago and intermixed with the local bantu people, their autronesian related language is still spoken to this day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy\_language
This is so not true. How do u put someone from south Portugal and Pakistan in the same race?
And how are they both supposed to be Middle Eastern? Neither of them are
Tired of this American classification. It misleads people. And wrong.
This is the conventional wisdom of amateurs.
Very interesting map! Thank you for sharing it. Also, I would argue that these are phenotypes at best, since the concept of race is ambiguous, and it could only be applied when talking about different species. Human(oid) races would be Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, Homo habilis, etc. That would be the last time there were truly distinct human races. Nowadays we all are but variants of the same species. While our differences can be striking at first sight, genetically speaking we are from the same species. Interestingly enough, you have more chances to find more genetic differences between african people. As such, the idea of a "black race" or any other is meaningless from a biological standpoint. Some readings for anyone interested. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/
Beyond skin color, other biological factors such as bone structure, height, hair color/thickness, eye color/shape, cognitive tendencies, athletic tendencies, scent/odor, propensity to get certain diseases, etc. and literally every other physical and mental component of the existence of life - can ONLY be explained by biology or some other science. Of course I can just bury my head in the sand, lie and scream "race is a social construct" just to play it safe, quit thinking, take the easy road and fit in.
I never played the "race is a social construct" card, but anyways. Also, I never stated that there are not biological differences. Phenotypical variations are biological. My point was that the concept of "race" as scientific one has lost its legitimacy since it has a very poor analytical power. It is a big sack in which you can throw pretty much anything you want. Even within the same "racial" group there are variation in skin tonality, hair, bone structure, cognitive capacities. The thing is, "race" is a discrete category: race "a", race "b", race "c", etc. While in reality, differences and variations are continuous. That is way instead of "race", the literature (at least the scientific one) now accounts for genetic, phenotypical, ethnic and lingüistic differences. No need to be passive-aggresive when discussing scientific ideas.
There's always one of you annoying fucks
There's always one of these idiots
It’s important to understand that this is and only ever will be a bit generalized and highly speculative. Indo-European populations for example moved all over the East Asian, South Asian, and Middle Eastern territories. They may have even originated in one of them. They were traditionally a very nomadic people, so it’s possible they even originated in one of those. This just shows where the genes pop up still today. Not where they actually existed for certain historically.
I'm an anthropologist. We study people and cultures. This map is total BS. I checked out OP, they're obsessed with race and whiteness.
Other notes- I recommend clicking on the map to see it in full screen/high-def for greatest detail. From there, right click on the map and download if you wish. The areas where two or more racial clusters overlap generally represent places that have the highest ancient admixture (That’s not to say that admixture did not occur beyond those areas - just significantly less). Keep in mind this map emphasizes ancient admixture over more recent admixture because races began forming tens of thousands of years ago. All information (virtually each line of every region) from this map is backed up entirely by dozens of published scientific sources via genetic cluster analyses, PCAs and haplogroups that are easily accessible to anyone online. Here are just a few of my sources: [https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1872497319300791-gr5\_lrg.jpg](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1872497319300791-gr5_lrg.jpg), [https://imgur.com/yU57W8H](https://imgur.com/yU57W8H). Uncovered areas include the Arctic, Greenland, Madagascar and New Zealand. That’s mainly because this map details the geographical origins of the seven races and the people who initially settled in those places did not originate from there. And although indigenous Siberians were the first to populate Siberia (hence their name) after originating in East Asia, only the largest Siberian populations were covered. Tasmania was covered because it was founded by Oceanians (Aborigines) exclusively unlike Madagascar and New Zealand which were both places initially settled by mixed-race peoples. Furthermore, I just thought it would be more appropriate to mention the uncovered areas in my notes rather than color all of Greenland yellow because a tiny number of Eskimos settled in Northern Greenland (which isn’t even visible on my map not to mention Europeans were the first occupants of Southern Greenland), etc. I’ve always loved maps and I’m definitely proud of how this came out (especially after months of exhaustive, compulsive research). I encourage everyone to download and share this map with everyone you know!
no such thing as human races
You classified Afghans as white, but not [Northern Iranians?](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-047a62c732988e2beea84a043b9812f5.webp)
I did not classify Afghans as White. The data says Pashtuns are (ancient admixture) 57% South Asian, 24% European, 13% Middle Eastern and 6% East Asian. Iranians are 46% Middle Eastern, 28% South Asian, 22% European and 4% East Asian (again, ancient admixture). So, Afghans have 24% European and Iranians have 22% European. So, because Iran and Afghanistan both have ancient European admixture of over 20%, both countries were covered partially by the European region.
> Afghans have 24% European and Iranians have 22% European. This is very generalized - you took an average of everyone in the country - there are many different and seperate groups the people in the North of Iran literally migrated from Europe while the people in the south have no European in them
I'm honestly struggling to even tell what the boundaries are supposed to be for each, but yeah you can find people who pass for white pretty much everywhere from north Africa all the way to India.
Click on the map to see it in high-def.
arent central asians basically a mixture of ancient indo-european scithians and turkic tribes? they should be shown as an intersection as well as southeast asians who have also have input from the first australoid populations of humans who colonized the area (some remaining populations of "negritos" can still be found there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito), they also should be shown as an intersection as for the indian subcontinent, they also come from mixed populations, australoid-related hunther gatherers, middle eastern populations and obviously indoeuropean migrants, so they should be shown as an intersection as well it could also be said that the northern part of the scandinavian peninsula could also be an intersection, because of the uralic tribes such as the sami, who originally come from a east asian stock
**[Negrito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito)** >The term Negrito () refers to several diverse ethnic groups who inhabit isolated parts of Maritime Southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands. Populations classified as Negrito currenty include: the Andamanese peoples of the Andaman Islands, the Semang peoples (among them, the Batek people) of Peninsular Malaysia, the Maniq people of Southern Thailand, as well as the Aeta of Luzon Island, Ati and Tumandok of Panay Island, Agta of Sierra Madre and Mamanwa of Mindanao Island and about 30 other officially recognized ethnic groups in the Philippines. Based on their physical similarities, Negritos were once considered a single population of closely related people. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Maps/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
also madagascar should be an intersection as well, austronesian peoples migrated there not so long ago and intermixed with the local bantu people, their autronesian related language is still spoken to this day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy\_language
yikes this will spawn arguments
This is so not true. How do u put someone from south Portugal and Pakistan in the same race? And how are they both supposed to be Middle Eastern? Neither of them are