Updated 11/26/2022

2000 words
10 minute read


  1. Introduction
  2. Background Info
    2.1. Taxonomy
    2.2. Human taxonomy
    2.3. Genetic cluster analyses
  3. The Data
    3.1. Original, unedited analysis (K=2 to K=20)
    3.2. Step-by-step data breakdown
    3.3. Most useful K=# analyses to save

1. Introduction

In 2014, Harvard University published one of the largest genetic cluster analyses to date, featuring (almost) the entire human race. This incredibly useful resource conclusively proves the existence of human races and provides an excellent overview of human genetic diversity.

Surprisingly, this data was not released as a stand-alone analysis, but hidden away in the supplementary materials of an unrelated study on Indo-European migrations (‘Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans’, Supplementary Information, page 165).

This article contains an in-depth, illustrated, step-by-step breakdown of this groundbreaking but underappreciated analysis. It is written with novices in mind, so if you are already familiar with genetic cluster/admixture analyses, taxonomy, and the history of human racial classification, skip to section 3 for the data breakdown. If not, section 2 contains enough layman-friendly information to get you up-to-speed.

2. Background Info

2.1. Taxonomy

Biological taxonomy is the process of hierarchically categorizing organisms based on how related they are to one another. Taxonomic ranks (or ‘taxa’) nest together like a Russian matryoshka doll. Multiple species fit into one genus, multiple genera fit into one family, multiple families fit into one order, and so on. Every rank is more specific and narrowly defined than the last.

Although formal taxonomic rankings span from domain to subspecies, we can infinitely peel back each “layer” of the taxonomic matryoshka doll, right down to the level of the individual. Different taxonomic layers become relevant under different circumstances. For example, if you wanted to compare the genetics of North and West Germanic people, it makes no sense to study the entire Primate order, or two Dutch individuals from Eindhoven.

2.2 Human taxonomy

Historically, European scientists have recognized three to eight “major” racial groups.

During the Middle Ages, recently Christianized Europeans took inspiration from the Biblical Book of Genesis (~500 BC) and divided humanity into three major races: Japhethites (Europeans), Semites (Asians), and Hamites (Africans), corresponding to the three Sons of Noah. This practice may have originated with “the last scholar of antiquity,” Isidore of Seville (560 – 636 AD), whose encyclopedia Etymologiae was the most widely used textbook throughout the Middle Ages.

After the Americas were discovered during the Age of Exploration (1400s – 1600s), this three-way classification was expanded to include Native Americans (or ‘Amerindians’) as a fourth race. Aboriginal Australians and related peoples were included as a fifth race (‘Australoids’) after Australia was colonized by the British in the late 1700s. Additionally, Sub-Saharan Africans were sometimes divided into two major races known as “Capoids” and “Congoids.” The former referred to South African KhoiSan, and the latter to all other Africans.

Judging by old ethnographic maps, European scientists often used a three-layered taxonomic system, whereby “major” races were subdivided into several smaller and more specific “minor” races (often based on language families, such as Indo-European and Semitic). These minor races were then further subdivided into ethnic groups. The example below is from the 1885 Meyers Lexikon encyclopedia.

Racial classifications were declared “pseudoscientific” and “obsolete” by the newly established global order after the Second World War. Over the past seven decades, the most powerful forces in the world have worked tireless to persuade the Western masses that race is not a biological reality, but a fabricated “ideology” or “social construct.” They claim that scientifically categorizing human beings into biological groups is evil and “divisive,” and that doing so will somehow inevitably result in the revival of slavery or another holocaust.

The Left-Wing, globalist establishment continuously spews a deluge ofrace-denialist propaganda. In spite of this, human racial classifications — which have been used intuitively around the globe for thousands of years and are based on observable reality — are still in use today. Even self-proclaimed “anti-racist” Western Leftists paradoxically assert that race is a meaningless “social construct” while chanting Black Lives Matter, Stop Asian Hate, all White people are racist!”

Furthermore, all of the “offensive” and “obsolete” racial categories of the past are still used in academia today by anthropologists, biologists, population geneticists, and so on. They simply altered the terminology and hoped that nobody would notice:

  • “Races” became “populations”
  • “Caucasoid” became West Eurasian
  • “Mongoloid” became East Eurasian
  • “Australoid” became South Eurasian
  • “Negroid” became Sub-Saharan African
  • “Amerindian” became Native American*
    * Note: Amerindian is still used and, generally, not regarded as offensive or obsolete.

See this article from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, for example, which discusses “West and East Eurasian peoples,” meaning ‘Caucasoids’ and ‘Mongoloids.’

2.3. Genetic cluster analyses

In essence, a genetic cluster analysis is a computerized taxonomic categorization process. Cluster analyses are generated by software that automatically groups data points into a predetermined number of groups (or “clusters”) according to how related the data points are to one another. Users tell the software how many clusters the data should be split into via the command “K=#,” where “#” is the number of clusters.

Below is a K=7 cluster analysis.

Each thin line represents one ‘sample’ (person). The Maya individual below predominantly descends from the ancestry component labeled ‘America’ (purple), but also has 25% ancestry from ‘Europe’ (green), 3% from ‘East Asia’ (orange), and 1% from ‘Central-South Asia’ (blue).

3. The Data

The admixture analysis featured in this article ranges from K=2 to K=20 — or 2 layers deep to 20 layers deep, in matryoshka doll terms. Some ethnic groups have been omitted by the authors, presumably due to a lack of data or because they are genetically near-identical to neighboring populations.

How to interpret the data below:

  • Each “cluster” (color) represents a theorized ancestral genetic component that may or may not correspond to a particular race of people, historic or contemporary.
  • Every human population (race, ethnic group, etc.) descends from a unique mix of ancestral genetic components. However, until a certain K=# level is reached, their unique mix of ancestral components may not be visible.
  • Each increase in K=# value adds more detail to the analysis by introducing a previously hidden cluster.
  • Lower K=# values, in general, represent more ancient genetic components.

I’ll include a brief summary paragraph alongside each K=# image below, explaining what new information is being revealed.

3.1. Original, unedited analysis (K=2 to K=20)

The original analysis is not very user-friendly but does provide a useful overview.

3.2. Step-by-step data breakdown

K=20 world map

The racial-genetic world map below was created by a friend. Although the racial distributions aren’t 100% geographically precise, the map is still very useful and accurate enough for a basic guide.


The most fundamental genetic divide in modern humans is between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians (or ‘Non-Africans’). If there were only two human “races,” this is how the division would appear.


Three major genetic clusters: Sub-Saharan Africans, West Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), and Eastern Non-Africans. South Eurasians (‘Australoids’), like Oceanians and native South Indians, are also included in the latter group. This means that all Eastern Non-Africans are more closely related to each other than to Africans and West Eurasians.

This level of analysis does not capture the full racial diversity of humanity.


Amerindians split from Eastern Non-Africans and form their own cluster. Note their Asiatic appearance.


The Sub-Saharan African population splits into two distinct populations, the aforementioned “Congoid” and “Capoid” races. The latter originally inhabited the Eastern Savanna but were driven south by West African Bantu-related expansions.


At this level, the South Eurasian cluster splits from East Asians. This ancestry is found at high levels in Oceania and South India, and low levels throughout East and Southeast Asia.

The genetic origins of South Eurasians is currently a contested topic. Due to their African-like appearance, some believe that they descend from an earlier Out of Africa migrtion, separate from other Eurasians. A recent study confirmed that Oceanians can be genetically modeled as descending from “an almost even mixture between East Asians and a population splitting from other Eurasians before [the East and West Eurasian populations diverged].” This is not shown in the admixture analysis due to their high levels of East Eurasian-related ancestry.

This K=6 analysis accurately captures what I (and many historic anthropologists) would describe as humanity’s six “major” or “basal” races — which can be more accurately described as human subspecies. Any further divisions should be considered ‘sub-race’ breakdowns.


Siberians appear as a separate group, distinct from East Asians. Even at this level of analysis, Siberia is relatively heterogeneous. The vast region is accessible to a diverse range of racial and ethnic groups, and it has been the site of numerous human migrations throughout history. As a result, the Siberian population carries East Asian, West Eurasian, and Amerindian ancestry.


South Asians appear as a distinct group. Ancestry components previously classified as West Eurasian and South Eurasian (blue and purple) are now almost entirely South Asian (green). This green component most likely represents a prehistoric population descended from both West and South Eurasian peoples.

This number of clusters corresponds to the upper limit of ‘classic major racial groups’ as defined by taxonomists in the past. The genetic breakdown below is nearly identical to the racial taxonomic systems used by historical anthropologists. However, due to their genetic heterogeneity, I would classify South Asians as a mixed-race population, similar to modern American Mestizos.


The West Eurasian splits into European and West Asian. The latter is labeled as such (rather than the usual Middle-Eastern-North-African) because this ancestry component likely originated in West Asia before spreading to North Africa via an ‘into Africa’ return migration.


Increased diversity in Africa. The Hadza, a tiny population of hunter-gatherers numbering less than 1500 people, splits into a distinct group. Genetic evidence suggests that they are distantly related to East Sub-Saharan African populations, such as the Sandawe.


Adamanese Islanders, represented in this study by the Onge, split from other South Asian populations. This is likely due to genetic drift, as they are a small, isolated population. They should not be considered a separate race but grouped with out South Eurasian-derived populations.


Amerindians split into North and South populations, with ‘North Amerindian’ ancestry peaking in Canada, particularly around the Bering Strait.


Pygmies diverge from other Sub-Saharan African groups. Although Pygmies are not meaningfully genetically distinct from other Africans, they should be classified as a distinct sub-race due to their distinct physical characteristics.


A Paleo-Siberian component splits from the wider Siberian population. The Paleo-Siberians descend from a mix of ‘Neo-Siberians’ (similar to modern Oroqens) and a population related to Amerindians.

Below: Nganasans and Inuits.


A light green ‘Caucasian & Iranian’ component appears in almost every West Eurasian and Central/South Asian population. This likely correspsonds to ancient ancestry from either Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers or Iranian Neolithic Farmers, or both. This ancestry peaks in modern Georgians and Balochis, pictured below.

The South Asian population has changed color and now represents native South Indian ancestry, which is significantly (but not entirely) comprised of the ancient ‘South Eurasian’ genetic component.


The East African (or Nilotic) population splits from other Sub-Saharan Africans. They are renowned for being very tall and long-limbed.


The Southern Amerindian population splits into ‘Amazonians’ (right) and ‘Other Amerindians’ (left).


Ju’Hoansi people split from wider the South African population, probably due to genetic isolation and a small population size, as with the Hadza and Adamanese Islanders. (Apologies for low image resolution).


West Eurasian ancestry is divided into four components: North European, Mediterranean European, Semitic, and Caucasian & Iranian. These components roughly correspond to the following ancient populations:

The Mediterranean component peaks in European Sardinians, while the Semitic component is maximized in nomadic Arabs and almost entirely absent from Europeans and North West Asians (Turks, Caucasians, Iranians, etc.).



I had previously included the K=20 analysis here, but it revealed nothing of interest. The Kalash separated as a distinct ethnic group from other Central/South Asians, but this had no significant impact on other ancestral makeups. Here’s the K=20 map again in its place:

3.3. Most useful K=# analyses to save

To conclude, below are some neater versions of the above images, focusing on the most important genetic splits:

K=2, African vs Eurasian split:

K=3, West Eurasian vs Eastern Non-African split:

K=6, the six basal/major races of humanity:

K=18, includes most of the important human sub-races, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Southeast Asians and Madagascans):

The last image is actually “K=19” but I removed the Onge because it was pointless to include them and I needed extra space for labels.

And here is a long image that summarizes the main points from this article:

I hope you found this article interesting and, as always, feel free to plagiarize it.