Northern Europeans are not literally "pure". A small number of non-European lineages have been detected in Northern Europe. This fact is hardly a revelation, nor does it make Northern Europeans unique in Europe. To the extent Northern Europeans (northwestern Europeans, anyway) are unique for their non-Caucasoid lineages, it is for the low levels they have compared to Southern Europeans. Had RM (racial_myths) stopped at saying Northern Europeans are not literally pure (i.e., very low levels of non-Caucasoid genes are detectable in Northern Europeans), I would not have taken issue with him.
But RM doesn't stop there. He goes on to try to prove the British are "not pure" due to a non-existent "Hamito-Semitic" influence. This line of reasoning is a bit odd, since in his next myth RM argues the "Semitic" Jews are white.
Incidentally, people sometimes claim that small amounts of non-white ancestry in whites "proves" race does not exist. Of course, it proves no such thing. Absolute isolation is not required in order for races to exist. Moreover, genetics show that northwestern Europeans (and to a lesser extent, Europeans in general) have maintained a remarkable degree of genetic isolation from non-Caucasoids.
"Hamito-Semites" in Britain?
Modern science gives no support to the idea of "Hamito-Semitic" influence in Britain. Genetics shows us that "dark" Brits are mostly descended from Paleolithic Western Europeans. Near Eastern and North African lineages are present in Britain at levels lower than almost anywhere else in Europe. What "Hamito-Semitic" genes are present in Britain are believed to date to the Neolithic. No mysterious Phoenicians are required to explain them.
Now let's look at some actual numbers. Here are some populations and their frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups 9 and 21, respectively.
Frequency of HG9
Palestinian Arabs (55%)
Ashkenazi Jews (43%)
East Anglian (1%)
Western Scottish (0%)
Frequency of HG21
Northern African (77%)
Ashkenazi Jews (23%)
Southern Portuguese (17%)
East Anglian (3%)
Western Scottish (2%)
"Semitic" HG9 is not detected in the Cornish, who RM would like to have you believe descend from Phoenicians. The above table is consistent with HG9 having been introduced by Neolithic farmers. Within Western Europe, there seems to be no correlation between high levels of Neolithic ancestry and dark phenotypes. And the darker areas of Britain don't even show male Neolithic ancestry, much less "Phoenician" ancestry.
Likewise for HG21, a North African marker. Regions associated with "dark Brits" have practically no North African male ancestry and the phenotypes of their inhabitants can in no way be attributed to "Hamites".
Beddoe notes: "In the personal observation table for Ireland, the localities are arranged in an ascending scale of depth of colour of hair; and it will be seen from the figures, and from the illustrative maps, that blonds are most numerous on and near the eastern coast, and brunets towards the west, whither they have been driven by successive invasions. There are a few exceptions to the rule, mostly explicable."
The people of western Ireland tend to be darker than those of eastern Ireland. This is not because of any outside invasion. Just the opposite. The west of Ireland has been relatively immune from invasion, a fact confirmed by genetics. Rosser et al. report that "HG 1 reaches near-fixation (98.5%) in the west of Ireland." HG 1, here, is indicative of male Paleolithic western European ancestry. So, dark phenotypes are certainly within the range of variation possible for Paleolithic western Europeans. This makes sense, since we know the Basques -- often used as a baseline for autochthonous western Europeans relatively untouched by later invasions -- show a wide range of phenotypes, from quite light to quite dark, with the average being somewhat dark.
But what about all the "evidence" RM offers for Hamites and Semites in Britain? If you look closely, I think you'll see that most of it is outdated or that it has been misconstrued by RM. RM doesn't bother presenting any evidence at all for his outrageous claim of Phoenician "settlement" in Britain. I'm certainly aware of no archaeological evidence for a Phoenician presence in the British Isles, nor, it seems, is anyone else.
The stories of the Phoenicians coming to Cornwall to first mine tin are not substantiated. As a nation Phoenicia did not arise until about 1,200BC and were based in Tyre in what is currently Lebanon. Cornish metal exploitation predates this by at least a millennium. (Source)Even if RM had real linguistic or physical anthropological evidence suggestive of a "Hamito-Semitic" influence in Britain, it would be irrelevant since we've already seen that genetics rule out "Hamito-Semitic" influence as responsible for dark phenotypes in Britain.
Still, let's examine some of RM's "evidence".
Dismantling RM's "evidence"
RM selectively quotes a passage from Coon's Races of Europe, which he then misconstrues as "evidence" for the presence of "Semitic" Armenoids in Britain . Here is the complete passage, with my comments and emphasis added.
Cornwall, which is the darkest county in England and an ancient Keltic linguistic stronghold, contains, like Wales, strong vestiges of a pre-Keltic population. That this is not a short Mediterranean variety, on the whole, is shown by the fact that the stature of Cornwall is relatively tall, and the mean cephalic index of the duchy not particularly low. A large-bodied, muscular type, with a head which is frequently brachycephalic, is common here, and must be attributed to the Bronze Age invasions [Cornwall is 82% HG1 and 18% HG2. Any Bronze age invasion must have been made up of people with origins in Western or Central Europe. An invasion of "Semites" or "Hamites" sizable enough to alter the racial character of Cornwall would certainly be expected to introduce detectable levels of HG9 or HG21. As you'll recall from the tables above, Cornwall has 0% HG9 + 0% HG21 for a grand total of 0% potential male "Hamito-Semitic" ancestry.]. It has been claimed, without statistical evidence,34 that there is a special racial type among the fishermen and sailors who live in the seaports of Cornwall, Devonshire, Somerset, and South Wales, but especially in Cornwall. Besides having medium or tall stature, and a tendency to brachycephaly, they are said to be heavy-bodied, lateral in build, thick-necked, with features of a somewhat Armenoid cast, dark, curly hair, thick eyebrows, and eyes which are frequently brown.
This type is recognized in local Keltic tradition, and according to one legend, is said to have been brought from Troy. It may also be associated with the strong local belief that the Cornish are descended from Phoenicians [So, we have a "somewhat Armenoid cast" "without statistical evidence" that one local legend associates with Phoenicians. And why would local legend associate them with Phoenicians? I don't know, maybe because they are of a "somewhat Armenoid cast". It is inconceivable that this local belief dates back to Phoenician times. This local legend is just that, a legend -- one of at least two different folk explanations for a local phenotype. Since modern genetics proves it wrong, this local folk belief has absolutely no bearing on racial questions.]. That there is such a type cannot be proved without metrical evidence, but it will be recognized by most persons familiar with this part of England. It can also be found in Massachusetts among old Cape Cod families whose ancestors came from Cornwall and Devon.
The Bronze Age invasions to which Coon refers were made up of Bell Beaker people, a Dinaric-Corded-Borreby blend from central and/or western Europe. It is "the Lower Rhine area . . . from whence any Beaker migrants into Britain are traditionally thought to have come" (Mays 2000). Arthur Keith (1915) says investigators "are almost unanimously of opinion that [the Bronze Age invaders of Britain had their origins] somewhere in that part of Europe which now lies within the bounds of the German Empire". Moreover, Keith states:
The men who invaded Britain in the Bronze Age . . . were strong, tall and muscular; they had long faces, rugged features, prominent noses, overhanging eyebrow ridges; we have every reason to believe they were fair in hair and complexion.
According to Keith (1952), Charles Darwin (who had blue-gray eyes and a ruddy complexion) reproduced the racial type of the Bronze Age invaders. I'm sure this is not exactly the look RM had in mind with his fantasies of "Middle Eastern" invaders.
RM cites 19th-century Medocentrist hero Giuseppe Sergi's claim of "the kinship of the early inhabitants of Britain to the North African white race". Sergi's "Mediterranean race" theories have been thoroughly discredited by scientific advances in the past century, as if they were ever tenable to start with. For perspective, Sergi also classifed the Masai and Watusi as part of the Hamitic branch of his "Mediterranean race", a claim that even the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica regarded with incredulity.
To the extent that a phenotypically unified "Mediterranean race" stretching from Britain to India exists (and I've seen no modern statistical or craniometric evidence supporting this fanciful idea), it is clearly the product of convergent evolution rather than common descent. With probable exceptions in Southeast Europe, Southern Italy, and Southern Spain, European "Mediterranean" phenotypes do not derive from non-European "Mediterraneans". This is particularly true of British "Mediterraneans". British "Meds" must be of overwhelmingly Paleolithic Western European descent, just as the Basques are.
RM quotes the following passage, which he attributes to The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition):
RM acts as though the above passage supports his position, when clearly it does not. Totally unrelated languages can share features. The above passage no more supports a "Hamito-Semitic" influence in Britain than it does an Eskimo or Basque influence.
An interesting feature of Celtic languages is that in several characteristics they resemble some non-Indo-European languages. These characteristics include the absence of a present participle and the use instead of a verbal noun (found also in Egyptian and Berber), the frequent expression of agency by means of an impersonal passive construction instead of by a verbal subject in the nominative case (as in Egyptian, Berber, Basque, and some Caucasian and Eskimo languages), and the positioning of the verb at the beginning of a sentence (typical of Egyptian and Berber).
RM then says:
A.M. Gessman notes that numerous Western European languages, including Celtic languages and English, reflect an influence that is "almost certainly Hamitic"
Again, this source fails to support RM's position. To the extent the Gessman is correct, there is a general Hamitic influence throughout Western Europe -- not localized to Britain and certainly not localized to the dark areas of Britian. Note, Gessman finds Hamitic influence in English, a Germanic language brought to Britain in the 5th century, a language which remains free of practically any influence from earlier languages spoken in Britain. Obviously, any contact between Germanic and Hamitic happened on mainland Europe. Likewise, if there is Hamitic substrate in Celtic, it was acquired on the continent and brought to Britain by Celtic speakers.
Moreover, Hamitic speakers need not be stereotypically "Hamitic" in phenotype. It seems that North West Africa received settlers from Western Europe during or shortly after the last ice age, as evidenced by genetics and the presence of North West European phenotypes among some groups of Berbers. It could just as easily have been these Berbers, with Northern European affinities, who brought the Hamitic substrate to continental Western Europe, probably in the Neolithic or earlier. But, either way, it's irrelevant. As I said before, modern science answers the question of "Hamito-Semitic" influence in dark Brits with a resounding "no".
RM offers blood group frequencies as evidence of a genetic "link" between Britain and North Africa. Assuming such a link exists, it could just as easily "prove" that North Africans are descended from the British (or, it could reflect a generalized Paleolithic Western European influence among North Africans). Keita (1990) quotes from Hiernaux's The People of Africa as follows:
The osteological affinities of the ancient guanches of the Canary Islands with North West Europe, together with the serological affinities of present rural Canarians with the same part of Europe, might be considered as strong evidence for an ancient settlement in North Africa of Europeans coming from further north than the Mediterranean region.
RM quotes a 1976 textbook as stating:
The similarity in frequencies of A and O between the two...definitely suggests that populations of Mediterranean origin did inhabit Ireland and Scotland at one time, leaving their imprint on the present gene pool
Apart from getting the explanation for blood group affinities backwards, what RM fails to mention (or fails to understand; I'm not always sure which of RM's many shortcomings to attribute to dishonesty and which to ignorance) is that research on ABO blood group frequencies was the earliest, crudest, and least useful method for investigating genetic variation in humans. ABO blood types are determined by a single locus, so frequencies of ABO are easily altered by drift; additionally, blood group frequencies can respond strongly to selection (particularly, via epidemic disease).
Research using only the ABO system has been surpassed at least twice: first, with the aggregation of data on many additional "classical markers", including several different blood group systems; and, second, when researchers began working directly with DNA. Using modern techniques, we can see that the British do not have large amounts of North African ancestry (or any male North African ancestry to speak of). Both Cavalli-Sforza's research and Y-chromosome analysis show that the Scottish, for example, have among the lowest levels of North African ancestry in Europe, and that all of Britain is lower in North African ancestry than all of Southern Europe.
If the blood type similarites between some North Africans and the British reflect a real genetic link, rather than a chance convergence attributable to genetic drift, then this link represents the movement of Northern European types into North Africa, rather than the movement of North African types into Britain.
RM quotes Bryan Sykes on the presence of mtDNA haplogroup J in Britain. So is RM suggesting Britain was invaded by an army of "Berber" and "Phoenician" women?
Haplogroup J is present throughout Europe. It spread from the Middle East (and, possibly from North Africa, as well) in the Neolithic. As Passarino et al. (2002) note, evidence suggests ". . . during the spread of agriculture women moved throughout Europe, crossing group and cultural barriers more so than men."
If some areas of Britain have "high" levels of female Neolithic ancestry, they still, of course, have no male "Hamito-Semitic" ancestry to speak of. And they still have among the lowest levels of total Neolithic ancestry in Europe.
Some have speculated haplogroup J is positively selected for by cold climates, possibly explaining its slightly elevated frequency in Britain.
Positive selection is also a possible influence. The presence of mtDNA haplogroup J in our sample, and elsewhere in Northern Europe shows that its frequency in Norway is even higher than in those areas from where it probably arrived. It would be intriguing, although very speculative, to hypothesise that the climate of Northern Europe may have played a selective pressure where the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation and the consequent higher production of heat in J individuals may have led to an advantage, as previously suggested for the European groups during the glaciations. (Passarino et al. 2002)And, I'd guess that greater reproductive success by Rh+ "Neolithic" women compared to native British women, who were often Rh-, may also have played a role in the slightly higher than expected levels of J in Britain. Rh incompatibility means that, historically, many Rh- women with Rh+ husbands would have had reduced reproductive success. Rh+ women, obviously, would not have had this problem. Furthermore, Molnar (1991) mentions a study that found:
There was a significant difference in the rate of live births of type-O mothers, and these women produced significantly fewer children when the fathers were type A or B.Native British women would have had higher levels of type-O than J-carrying "Neolithic" women (the western, "Celtic" British to this day have elevated levels of type-O), again, possibly contributing to differential reproductive success that led to elevated levels of mtDNA haplogroup J.
RM now mentions a study that finds 38.9% HG21 in the North Wales town of Abergele.
What RM fails to mention is that the other, larger North Wales sample in the same study had only 3.8% HG21. Obviously, we're witnessing the effects of genetic drift and/or sampling error (the sample from Abergele consists of only 18 people).
As the authors themselves suggest:
The high frequency of hg21 in Abergele may indicate high genetic isolation and drift in some parts of North Wales, a hypothesis that is consistent both with the tight clustering of Abergele haplotypes within this haplogroup and with the lower genetic diversity found in Llangefni.
The fact remains, the "Celtic" British have among the lowest levels of HG21 in Europe.
"Middle-Eastern, Armenoid" Pictish warriors
Hilariously, RM claims the below illustration shows "Middle-Eastern, Armenoid features" in ancient Britons. What RM doesn't mention is that the picture below was not made by ancient Britons; rather, it is a beeswax-crayon-on-cotton copy of a copy of a crude Pictish stone carving. RM is implying that ancient Britons depicted themselves as swarthy, when obviously, they did not. Dishonesty or stupidity? With RM, who knows?
Here is what the original stone looked like, and a line drawing based on the carving:
The carving is too crude to be of much anthropological use, but there is nothing "Armenoid" about the people depicted, and to the degree we can discern their features, they would not be at all out of place in modern Scotland. More drawings of Pictish stone carvings:
Even if the Picts were partly-derived from partly-Dinaric Bell Beaker people, there is no reason to suspect the Dinaric element in this blend was anything but indigenous to Europe. Nor, is there any reason to think this Bronze Age element was dark (as we saw above, "we have every reason to believe they were fair in hair and complexion").
Coon mentions that:
The eastern Scottish coast, from Caithness to Berwick, shows little . . . black hair, and in general the areas of both Pictish and Saxon concentration are quite deficient in it. This finding should dispel the idea that the Picts were a notably brunet people.
As his devastating finisher, RM presents a selection of photos of British-derived personalities who he claims show "physical traits which attest to obvious non-European ancestry". While a few of the subjects seem a bit more "exotic" than one might expect from the British Isles, none looks distinctly non-European.
However "non-European" one might subjectively judge British phenotypes, the genetic evidence shows Britain has among the lowest levels of non-white admixture in Europe, in addition to being very low in Near Eastern and North African ancestry. There is nothing mysterious about dark Brits. Very simply, they are, like most non-dark Brits, predominantly descended from Paleolithic Europeans.
Above: In RM's feverish mind, Victoria (Adams) Beckham (left) and Sean Connery (center) are "non-European", while Southern Italian Sonia Topazio (right) is "pure Mediterranean".
Bryan Sykes and 'black genes in white Britons'
A while back, various sources reported on Bryan Sykes' claim that he had detected non-European admixture in white Britons. This news was accompanied by the usual politically correct sermonizing ('this proves race doesn't exist', etc.). Sykes claimed he had analyzed the DNA of 10000 Britons, and found that 1% was of "African or Asian" origin (from this article, it's not clear exactly what sort of DNA Sykes analyzed; I believe the 1% number may refer to those who have EITHER an "African or Asian" Y-chromosome OR "African or Asian" mtDNA). Reports often referred to "black genes", but on the basis of the information provided in the articles, it is impossible to determine how much, if any, sub-Saharan ancestry Sykes found in Britons. Sykes has yet to publish his results in a peer-reviewed journal, and the vague reports in the popular press offer little that adds to this discussion. But, even if we were to accept the 1% number, the British would still have less non-white ancestry than the Italians.
An important question is how "African and Asian" is defined here. Sykes "believes the DNA originates in Africans brought to Britain as soldiers and slaves by the Romans." As far as I know, at no point did the Romans bring sub-Saharans to Britain in any capacity (certainly not in numbers worth talking about). So I am led to believe the "African" genes Sykes is referring to may be North African. I have never seen published study in which so much as a single sub-Saharan Y-chromosome was discovered in Britain. However, I have seen studies that found sub-Saharan Y-chromosomes in Sardinia and Portugal.
I won't speculate any further on this study until it has actually been published, or at least reported in more detail. Here is the article I quoted above. Make of it what you will.
May 20 2001
DNA reveals black genes in white Britons
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
ONE in every 100 "white" Britons is directly descended from an African or Asian, a new study has found. The study, which looked at the DNA of 10,000 people, found that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were actually far more diverse.
Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, believes the DNA originates in Africans brought to Britain as soldiers and slaves by the Romans.
Among those whom Sykes found with a strong selection of African genes were a dairy farmer from Somerset whose British ancestry can be traced back hundreds of years.
Many other discoveries cannot be so easily explained. Sykes found that a primary school teacher in Edinburgh had Polynesian DNA that could only have originated from tribes in the south Pacific, even though her family could trace its British ancestry for at least 200 years.
Sykes believes such discoveries show that long migrations and consequent mixing of populations have always been a feature of humanity, making talk about racial purity meaningless.
He said: "This makes nonsense of any biological basis for racial classification. We are all a complex mixture and, at the same time, we are all related."
Similar analyses on black Britons have helped them to establish the links to their past that were destroyed when their ancestors were captured by slave traders.
Jendayi Serwah, of Bristol, came to Britain from Jamaica and was unable to trace her ancestry more than a few generations. Gene tests showed that she was almost certainly descended from members of the Kenyan Kikuyu tribe.
Other recent research has further undermined claims that Britain, or groups within it, could be racially unmixed. It showed that almost everybody of native European descent could trace their ancestry back to one of seven women who lived between 45,000 and 10,000 years ago.
Sykes is part of a project to create a genetic map of the British Isles, including Ireland. Early results suggest that, despite each group's claims to distinct origins, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland were once members of the same tribe, some of whose members emigrated to southwest Scotland in about 800AD.
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Nonwhite admixture in Americans
Showing where his hostilities really lie, RM attacks Americans on a page supposedly about Northern Europe. Of course, white Americans are not "pure", but so what? They still happen to have less non-white admixture than most Southern Europeans.
Black admixtureOne researcher claimed that 30% of white Americans have on average about 2% Negroid ancestry, while the other 70% have no detectable trace of admixture (Mark Shriver in Sailer 2002). According to Shriver, for the US White population as a whole, the average sub-Saharan contribution is about .7%. UPDATE: Shriver now says "about 10 percent of [the European-American population] have some African ancestry" (Wade 2002) -- much lower than his previous claim of 30%. Incidentally, Shriver is now attributing his own African ancestry to "a Mexican grandmother", rather than to runaway slaves as he had implied in the Steve Sailer article.
[Important] UPDATE II: As more information has come out about DNAprint's "AncestryByDNA" test (Shriver is affiliated with DNAprint, and his findings mentioned above were made using a version of the ABD test), it has become clear that the ABD test absolutely DOES NOT accurately determine low level admixture in individuals. Thus, any statement from Shriver concerning "admixture" in American whites is meaningless. Recent research on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA detected NO black admixture in American whites (Kayser et al. 2003):
. . . African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods.
The sample included 628 European-American Y-chromosomes and mtDNA from 922 European-Americans, and the fact that there was no evidence for black admixture whatsoever is significant. The findings here also provide further indication that the ABD test is worthless for estimating "minor admixture".
[Important] UPDATE III: A DNAprint executive now claims "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry" (ABCNEWS.com, Dec. 28 2003). This represents a third downard revision of the proportion of white Americans claimed by DNAprint to have black ancestry. An amazing lack of consistency (30% -> 10% -> 5%) proves the pronouncements of DNAprint employees on the racial ancestry of Americans are unreliable. People who hereafter continue to cite such claims prove only their hostility towards Americans.
UPDATE IV: According to data released by DNAprint (see TABLE:ETHNIC), Greeks, Italians, and Iberians have higher levels of "Sub-Saharan" and "Native American" admixture than do "European Americans". The "ABD" test remains deeply flawed, and other lines of evidence support the fact that Americans are "whiter" than southern Europeans, but it is amusing to see the hopes of anti-American Medicists smashed by the very company they put so much faith in.
A study of self-identified whites in a heavily hispanic area of Colorado reported a maternal Amerindian contribution of about 0.97%, which suggests an Amerindian contribution of about 0.5% of total genes -- this in an area I expect is greatly above the national average in Amerindian ancestry (Merriwether et al. 1997). Recent research on Y-chromosomes detected no male Amerindian (or sub-Saharan) haplogroups in a sample of 114 white Americans.
The bottom line is that American whites certainly have less black ancestry than the Portuguese, and probably have less Amerindian ancestry than Iberians (Helgason et al. 2001 detected 2.27% Arctic Asian and/or Amerindian haplogroups in Iberia).
Finns, HG 16, etc.
Cavalli-Sforza reports the Finns are "90% European" based on classical genetic markers. This statement does not necessarily mean the other 10% is Mongoloid, but it does set an upper limit on Mongoloid contribution to the Finns. Nor can we expect all the "Uralic" genes in Finns are attributable to HG16. In addition to HG16, Finns also have 2% HG12 (Rosser et al. 2000) and 1.49% non-European mtDNA (Helgason et al. 2001). Thus, we are left with perhaps at most ~8.25% total Uralic ancestry that could be attributed to the 61% HG16 in Finns. By analogy, Gotlanders -- with about 6% HG16 -- might be expected to have around 0.825% Uralic ancestry.
There is no reason to believe HG16 is "Mongoloid". The latest research shows that Tat C (HG12+HG16) ". . . among the Finno-Ugric races of Europe . . . is much more diverse, more multibranched, and hence apparently older than among any of the Siberian peoples." Thus, Tat C arose among Europeans and travelled east to Siberia, not the reverse.
Be aware that RM sometimes tries to pass off Japanese or half-Japanese people who happen live in Finland as "Finns". If you need some idea of what Finns look like, here is a page with the Finnish members of the European Parliament.
Guglielmino et al. Uralic genes in Europe. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990 Sep;83(1):57-68.
Helgason et al. mtDNA and the Islands of the North Atlantic: Estimating the Proportions of Norse and Gaelic Ancestry. Table 3. Am J Hum Genet 2001 68:723-737.
Kayser et al. Y chromosome STR haplotypes and the genetic structure of U.S. populations of African, European, and Hispanic ancestry. Genome Res. 2003 Apr;13(4):624-34.
Keita, S.O.Y. Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Sep;83(1):35-48.
Keith, Arthur. Presidential Address. The Bronze Age Invaders of Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Volume 45 (Jan-Jun, 1915), 12-22.
Keith, Arthur. Some Anthropological Notes on Darwin and Members of His Family. Man. Volume 52 (Dec, 1952), 181-182.
Mays, Simon. Biodistance Studies Using Craniometric Variation in British Archaeological Skeletal Material in Human Osteology : In Archaeology and Forensic Science, ed. Margaret Cox and Simon Mays. London Greenwich Medical Media Limited, 2000.
Merriwether et al. Mitochondrial versus nuclear admixture estimates demonstrate a past history of directional mating. Am J Phys Anthropol 1997 Feb;102(2):153-9
Molnar, Stephen. Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups. Prentice Hall, 1991.
Passarino et al. Different genetic components in the Norwegian population revealed by the analysis of mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms. Eur J Hum Genet. 2002 Sep;10(9):521-9.
Rosser et al. Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language. Table 1. Am J Hum Genet 2000 67:1526-1543.
Sailer, Steve. Analysis: White prof finds he's not -- 2. UPI 2002 May 8.
Wade, Nicholas. For Sale: A DNA Test to Measure Racial Mix. The New York Times. 2002 Oct 1.