This is not an archetype, but is closely related to the development of archetypes so it is put in the archetype section.
Genetics overlaps some controversial social topics, so scientists are often inadvertently pushed in a direction that encourages either a status quo or a politically correct line of reasoning. Today the pressure is on being politically correct, progressive, etc, and genetic patterns that could be interpreted in any way to contradict these pressures are suppressed, along with reasoning that might support the 'wrong' version of science.
Normally science allows enough wiggle room that a person can decipher what is 'true' and what is 'agenda', but genetics and many other sciences have become so specialized that many people are forced to trust whatever theory is fed to them.
"It has been shown that Melanesians (e.g. Papua New Guinean and Bougainville Islander) share relatively more alleles with Denisovans when compared to other Eurasians and Africans. It estimated that 4% to 6% of the genome in Melanesians derives from Denisovans, while no other Eurasians or Africans displayed contributions of the Denisovan genes."
For this reason, and also because so many people are resistant to common sense, below is a simplified 'genetic theory' that may help some people understand the urgency of stepping back from the forced melting pot and re indiginizing as many areas as possible.
If you wanted to draw a quick genetic chart to show how genes are transmitted down generations, the easiest and fastest and most accurate would be a chart simply showing 'gender descent', male and female lineage.
Over generations people inherit more genes from their same sex parent than from their opposite sex parent. Boys inherit from their mothers, and girls from their fathers, but over generations the strongest linkage is from the same gender, and next from the common tribal founders.
Learning and socialization generally follows a gender linkage too, a boy usually learns more from his father, a girl from her mother. Jung would add that there is also a contra sexual element in the psychology of an individual that has a genetic link to the opposite sex parent, but that's a separate issue.
There are several common ways a new population is formed.
One of the most common is when individuals from one species who inhabit a wide area start to form a new species when part of their group is physically isolated. The new species is reacting to new pressures, adapting etc.
Human beings of course started that process in a number of areas. You can look at the people indigenous to any region on earth and they have begun to differentiate, speciation.
The common, politically correct, opinion is that these groups are identical, and the unspoken goal for forced melting pots is to assimilate all of these human groups. In other words a U.S. melting potter and a Russian melting potter, and a Chinese melting potter and a Brazilian melting potter each see a 'humanist goal' of one species without the degree of genetic diversity that exists today.
Like clever politicians, they frame their actions as 'encouraging diversity' but a person should examine things closely.
To do this, a few parallel examples will be given.
Starting with the general idea of gender descent mentioned above, here are some factors that have to be taken into account.
1) Most initial colonizing is done by men, and historically rape is one of the most universal colonizing methods.
So in the initial mix of two human groups, going as far back in history as a person can guess at, the first descendant lineages are 'male conqueror' and 'female indigenous'. If you were going to make a third and fourth tribe from any two colonizer/colonized tribes, those would be the two lineages with a head start.
"No evidence of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found in modern humans. This suggests that successful Neanderthal admixture happened in pairings with Neanderthal males and modern human females."
2) The social qualities of groups over time seems to support the theory of gender descent. In other words a small number, above one, of originating members of each species forms, followed by a period of 'introduced genetic diversity' from outlier groups that will go extinct, followed by a consolidation of the species, which is the development of new 'originating members' which include the extinct blood lines from the outlier groups.
"Africa has the highest degree of genetic diversity of any continent, which is consistent with an African origin of modern humans. After the initial migration from Africa, the Indian subcontinent was the first major settling point for modern humans. Consequently, India has the second-highest genetic diversity in the world. In general, the genetic diversity of the Indian subcontinent is a subset of Africa, and the genetic diversity outside Africa is a subset of India."
So all groups outside of Africa are descended from, and have 'founders' from, a specific limited population in Africa, 'Africa group 1'.
In addition to those 'tribes', there are additional tribes in Africa who have a different group of 'founders', 'Africa group 2, group 3, etc'.
So the furthest influx of currently surviving genetic diversity for any group or tribe outside Africa would be from any African tribes that do not have ancestry that includes the 'new' founders of the tribes outside Africa.
Any person today descended from people outside Africa could find the furthest 'genetic distance' which was compatible with almost all of their founders by marrying into one of these African groups.
Marrying into Africa group 1 would provide distance equal to the point of initial separation from the African population. Other groups would provide greater genetic distance. But most of the African groups would further minimize the remnants of extinct humans that developed outside Africa, because African groups lack that remnant.
A person would guess that a common founder of those extinct remnants and the Africa subgroups should exist, based on the popular theory of human evolution, but genetics seems to contradict this,
Likewise, obviously those African populations that did not produce the first subgroups in India would have some founders who are not represented in other groups.