Is there a Rusyn look?  You may have heard people in Rusyn genealogy circles ask this question. That is, are there distinguishing physical features that separate us from other Slavic ethnic groups? Do we resemble other European groups more so than others? These questions stem from the same type of curiosity whether you are a genealogy or DNA hobbyist, anthropologist, or layperson. However, these same questions can also lead to a ripple effect of generalizations. They may begin with statements such as, “I’ve noticed many Rusyns seem to have (a specific physical feature)”. The individual might often presume too that a certain physical feature indicates ancestry from a given region. For example, if an Eastern European person has an epicanthal fold in their eyes, someone might ignorantly remark, “Maybe it’s from the Golden Horde in the 13th century!” Such generalizations often fail to consider the highly overlooked notion of genotype.

Genotype is related to the genetic code (alleles) found within cells. The most important thing to note in regard to genotype is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Certainly, genotype can determine whether a person will inherit a physical feature such as an epicanthal fold. However, this does not mean the individual shares genetic variants with East Asian populations. In other words, inheriting a specific feature does not mean that it is correlated with an ethnic group.

That being said, when we refer to “genotype”, we are talking about a person’s autosomal admixture. There are a number of different tests available to determine autosomal admixture, the most common being SNP testing. SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) account for genetic variation among the human genome. SNP DNA remains stable over generations, and as a result, can often act as biological markers to identify ancestral origin, disease risks, and drug responses. Mainstream DNA companies such as 23&me or AncestryDNA would fall under the category of SNP tests. 

The second most common form of testing would be the STR (short tandem repeats) test. STR tests measure the repetition of letter sequences in a person’s DNA code. It is this pattern of repetitions that can determine relation to a specific person, population, or haplogroup. Unlike SNPs, STR DNA changes over generations. They have a high mutation rate, occurring after a certain number of generations. This means that once the mutation occurs, the descendents of those with it will define their genetic relationship to others by the presence of this mutation. In this sense, STR tests may be less ideal for determining distant ancestry.

I outline these forms of testing as a means of refuting what genealogy hobbyists perpetuate too often– the notion that “My family members look this way and have a small percentage of (a given ancestry) so I conclude that…” This type of “reasoning” has become ingrained in the culture of DNA and genealogy communities, including that of the Rusyns. It may simply be that it is easier to create one’s own narrative as opposed to tackling a less familiar discipline. The issue, however, is that one person’s understanding of a topic can quickly become an entire community’s understanding. 

This is why, when DNA hobbyists began learning about human anthropological phenotypes, they began combining this new topic with their already preconceived notions of genetic inheritance as a whole. For instance, a person of South Polish descent reads the description of Gorid, which is generally agreed to be endomorphic, with a rounded face, fair to light brown skin, short in stature. People begin to wonder why they do not fit neatly into these phenotypes. They did not consider that most descriptions of phenotypes date back to the Edwardian period. Second of all, the descriptions were not intended to describe 21st century humans, but rather humans before globalization. That is not to say, though, that phenotypes were “fixed” in the precolonial period, as variations have certainly always existed. 

Phenotypes are most clearly defined by observable characteristics. What we must understand about human phenotyping is that it is a much more flawed, if not archaic science when compared to genetic testing. It is rather unsettling in the 21st century to see humans classified in the same manner as Darwin classified birds —  and likely for a reason. The history of human phenotyping has roots in the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century, as you may already know. For instance, the idea that a person’s skull size correlates with their intelligence was used to justify not only racial and gender stereotyping, but at many points in history, mass genocide. It is for this reason that mainstream society has largely moved past human phenotyping, phrenology, and similar “pseudosciences”.

It is no surprise then that phenotypes do not align perfectly with genotypes. Take for example two siblings, both with completely different phenotypes, despite sharing the exact same background. If one does not match the archaic (or rather, “stereotypical”) definition of their ethnic background, does this mean they do not actually belong to it? Of course not. If you test the genome of both siblings they will undoubtedly share genetic closeness to the same populations, at similar frequencies. Hence, phenotyping can only go so far before it evolves into what is largely ethnic stereotyping.

So should we spend a significant amount of time determining whether we are “Carpathid”, “Dinarid”, “Norid”, and so forth? I would argue, no. While the DNA community has an oftentimes bizarre fixation on phenotype, discussions of “how we look” do not help further our cause outside of this realm. Understanding our genome, however, does. It has been a common misconception that “ethnicity” equals merely genetic admixture, as certainly there are other factors involved. However, we should not disregard that it remains a significant component. The differences in our genetic admixture help to not only define Rusyns as a separate ethnic group, but also to better grasp our history and which ancient populations we descend from. 

Why then, do so many remain focused on phenotype? I have found that in many cases, those inquiring about the supposed “Rusyn look” are more likely to be members of the North American diaspora. Why exactly, is uncertain, but it could be easily attributed to the identity politics in this region. North American identity politics are heavily focused on broad generalizations, namely in regard to ethnicity. This could in part be due to lack of geographic knowledge, more specifically the inability to recognize regional differences concerning both ethnicity and culture. I believe this is why many Americans claim that there is a singular “Russian look”, “Irish look, “Korean look”, the list goes on. If a person does not spend significant time in a country or region, it is impossible to understand the diversity of physical appearance in its natives. 

When we do finally grasp this sense of physical diversity, we realize how insignificant it actually is to its correlation with DNA. In many ways, this is akin to being told that a friend or acquaintance looks just like you. Does this mean that this person is your blood relative? Just as we cannot draw conclusions of genetic relationship based on appearance, similarly, we cannot assume genetic ties to a population based on phenotype alone.

For this reason, I would hope to see more of us focused on the relationship between our historical migrations and our modern genome, rather than trying to draw conclusions from every difference in hair color, skin tone, nose shape, and so on. I do believe that we as Rusyns search for characteristics by which we can define ourselves and reestablish our identity. We observe other groups of people also defining themselves strongly by physical appearance, and see no harm in doing so ourselves. In the process, though, we stop caring about whether or not we can prove our point. It instead becomes an endless cycle of “I personally think”, believing that there is credibility to be had, simply because of personal experience. When in reality, it is merely unwillingness to recognize obsolete thought and expand one’s intellect.