As soon as the soldiers signaled that they were in place, uniformed police fanned out into the village streets, banging on doors and impatiently smashing through any not opened quickly enough by the sleepy people within. The families were ordered into the streets. Anyone who resisted was clubbed down and dragged.
Once in the open, terrified men, women, and children were herded into lines to be inspected by the authorities. As each person reached the head of the line, a sergeant peered into his or her face, then gestured to one side or the other. The entire town was being sorted into two shivering groups based on appearance.
Sometimes the choosers would motion a husband to one side but his wife the other way. Minor commotions erupted as couples protested separation. But each disturbance subsided when a squad of the perimeter soldiers quickly moved in with their rifles at ready. Sometimes the sergeants would gesture a mother to one side but a child to the other. Then the disturbances were louder and longer-lasting. On such occasions, soldiers had to hold bayonets to fathers' chests while screaming children were torn from mothers' arms.
Although not documented in the record, one can imagine that now and then the sergeant at the head of each line might face someone that he could not sort out, someone too ambiguous-looking. The sergeant might then assign a man to escort the prisoner to a desk under a tent, next to a carriage under the trees. There, a learned gentleman in a white lab smock would pull out a set of calipers and measure the prisoner's head. Jotting down the measurements and checking them in a reference book, the anthropologist would issue his ruling. Once again, the science of craniofacial anthropometry would have triumphantly determined a person's true "race."
Eventually, the job was done. Those deemed of the correct "race" were allowed to return to their shattered lives. Those chosen for ethnic cleansing were transported to their ghastly fate.
Nazi Europe? Czarist pogrom? Yugoslav disintegration? No. The soldiers and police wore U.S. uniforms and did their grim deed under the Stars and Stripes. The events unfolded in 1818 Fernandina, Florida. In contrast to Nazi Germany, the unlucky ones were not transported to gas chambers. Instead, U.S. authorities gave them the opportunity to "return to slavery."1
You are horrified by this account? You cannot believe that the United States would sanction such acts? Please accept my sympathy. In the 1920s, U.S. educational leaders decided that K-12 "history" classes would henceforth teach patriotic myths instead of facts. And so to this day, K-12 remains a place for children to become docile citizens, not a place to learn ugly truths. U.S. authorities often forcibly separated people seen as Black from those seen as White, splitting families where necessary. It happened each time U.S. soldiers captured a Seminole village between 1835 and 1842, when the last band of Seminoles finally surrendered. The only part of the tale that I made up was the physical anthropologist -- in reality, he would not appear on the world scene for another three quarters of a century.
Do I present this scene to pique collective White guilt? Not at all. You yourself, dear reader, probably had ancestors in all the groups
depicted, townspeople as well as the soldiers. No, my motive is to draw attention to a misuse of science, right here, right now, today.
The decoding of the human genome has spawned whole fields of study. Among them is molecular anthropology -- using DNA to trace migrations and other demographic events in the distant past. Molecular anthropology has blossomed so vigorously that it is hard to keep up with all of the puzzles of the past that are finally being solved. The downside is that the new technology is being misused, like every other technology since the wheel. This essay presents both sides of molecular anthropology. The Bad News tells of areas where, as in 1818 Fernandina, we should be worried. The Good News shows examples of some of the field's truly wonderful findings.
All phenotypes are inherited, not just "ethnic" ones. People whose parents and grandparents had long earlobes usually have kids with long earlobes. Parents and grandparents lacking earlobes usually produce kids without earlobes. Folks with tall parents and grandparents usually have tall kids and hereditarily short people have short kids. But Americans do not attach social importance to those obvious differences. No one says that long-earlobe people should not marry short-earlobe people. No sane person would say that the tall child of short parents is really a short person passing for tall. Please read that last sentence again slowly, preferably out loud.
Some features are socially significant. Americans pick skin color from among the thousands of regional traits that they ignore, and say that it shows a thing called "race." They then enforce "race" as a caste. In other words, they claim that a single color-line exists, that people should not marry across it, that you cannot switch sides, and that you are born into your parents' side of the line, no matter your actual appearance. The four corresponding jargon terms are: discontinuity, endogamy, impermeability, and hypodescent.
The U.S. "race" notion is a social pathology that has afflicted this land since about 1676. For example, if you are male, the darker your skin, the higher your risk of high blood pressure. And yet, this risk is not genetic, despite what some physicians think. West Indians have little such risk, and high blood pressure is very rare in West Africa. The reason for Americans' risk, it turns out, is that the darker your skin, the worse you are hassled from day one. You are even hassled by other members of the Black community, many of whom see dark skin, "bad hair," and wide nose as lower class.2
Ethnic variation could be made synonymous with "race" only by defining the Dutch race, the Scandinavian race, the Puerto Rican race, the Irish race, the Scottish race, the Appalachian race, the Papua-New Guinean race, the Polynesian race, and the Italian race. Indeed, you must separate the north Italian (Milanese) race from the south Italian race. In fact, you must split south Italians into the Neapolitan race and the Sicilian race. Actually, you must then split the east Sicilian (Catania) race from the west Sicilian (Palermo) race, and then split the northern Palermo race from the southern Palermo race because, in each case, people look different.
In order scientifically to tie "race" to regional variation, you must do all this splitting in some consistent, reproducible, manner. And you must definitely avoid lumping Australian Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, and Bantus, who -- other than having tightly-curled black hair, broad noses and dark brown skins -- are far more different in skeleton and DNA than, say, Zulus are to Frenchmen.
Ask ten people who believe that "race" has biological reality to sort the following groups into Black or White "races": Tuaregs, Berbers, Puerto Ricans, Andalusians, Portuguese, Basques, Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Egyptians, Sudanese, Pakistanis. All ten sorters will agree that the groups look different, but no two sorters will sort them the same. At one extreme, a neo-Confederate redneck or Black activist zealot would consider all these groups to be Black. At the other extreme, a typical Puerto Rican would see them all as White. Although regional variation is real, most anthropologists have taught for decades that "race," like the Easter Bunny, lives only in people's heads.3
On the other hand, some molecular anthropologists have been reviving the "race" notion by giving it a veneer of respectability. Researchers have discovered that if you submit a paper announcing a connection between a particular DNA marker and "place of ancestral origin," it is less likely to be published than one saying that the marker relates to "ethnicity." Even more publishable are words that the marker relates to "race." Publishers, editors, and reviewers deflect blame for this distortion, claiming that their readers expect traditional terminology. They are probably right. When honorable authors, publishers, editors, and reviewers all adhere to scientific principles, and use the more accurate wording "place of ancestral origin," the popular press promptly changes the wording back to "race" or "ethnicity" in news reports. To the public, the mere linkage of "ethnicity with "DNA" means that science has come around to viewing "race" as real again.4
Gill and those like him say that your appearance (regional variation) is unimportant in determining "race." Indeed, they say that phenotype is actually misleading. No matter what you believe about your own ancestry, no matter what you look like, according to this respected professor of anthropology, he and thousands of other professionals in the United States are sincerely convinced that, for a fee, they can sniff out your secret hidden "race." Does this frighten you? Does it remind you of the Nazis or of 1818 Fernandina? It scares the bejeezus out of me.
Molecular anthropology enters the picture because some forensic anthropologists have switched from craniofacial anthropometry to DNA testing and others have told me in private that they plan to switch as soon as they can. The reason, they say, is twofold. First, they have learned that when newspapermen snap a photo of an anthropologist applying calipers to a defendant's head under the watchful eye of court bailiffs, it can hit the front pages and make everyone look bad. Wiping a Q-tip inside someone's cheek is not so humiliatingly newsworthy. Second, juries have learned to be skeptical when an anthropologist talks about an obviously European-looking person's "gonial inversion" or her "prognathism." But "DNA" is a magic word that numbs jurors' reasoning.6
The final bad news about molecular anthropology is that it is being used to discriminate against people of partial African ancestry. For example, now that molecular anthropology has shown that the genetic trait causing cystic fibrosis originally came from northern Europe and the one causing sickle-cell originally came from Africa, funding for the former has dramatically outstripped the latter, despite both genes' appearing at some level in all U.S. populations. The defense is that more Americans are susceptible to the former than to the latter. But this rationale is based only on comparing the number of self-labeled Blacks to self-labeled Whites, with Hispanics and Muslim Americans (from north Africa, Arabia, or Sudan) left out of the balance-scale.7
Similarly, the immune systems of Americans of preponderantly African ancestry tend to reject transplants from people of mainly European or Asian ancestry. Their problem lies in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). This is a region on everyone's sixth chromosome (C6) that produces enzymes and other proteins to identify "self" from "other." We will look into precisely what the problem is with African MHC in just a moment. For now, I just make the point that physicians sometimes tell administrators that "transplants would be less problematic for recipients of mainly African ancestry if we had more donors of mainly African ancestry." Administrators then pass this on to harvesters as "We need more Black organ donors to support Black organ recipients." And harvesters pass this on to grieving widows, children, and parents as "if you don't sign this authorization, your people will not get a transplant when your time comes." The defense is that the above is just ignorance talking, not deliberate discrimination. The rebuttal is that Americans of mainly African descent tend to reject transplants from anybody, even from others of African ancestry. Again, the problem is the MHC on C6, and we shall get back to it momentarily.8
Admittedly, diverting funding or misunderstanding transplant rejection are not examples of deliberate discrimination. They are the consequences of well-intentioned policies made in a fundamentally racialist environment (one that ascribes social significance to ancestry). Hence, I list them as the least worrisome bad news. Forensic anthropologists who use pseudo-science to delude authorities that they alone can detect hidden "passing" are more reprehensible. And giving scientific approval to the "race" notion, thus allowing it to rise, Dracula-like, from the grave where anthropologists drove a stake through its heart long ago, is worse yet.
Before we get into these examples, though, let us quickly review molecular anthropology's data sources and what they tell us. The three major data sources used in molecular anthropology are: DNA from the major histocompatibilty complex on chromosome six (MHC or HLA, for short), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and nonrecombinant DNA on the "Y" chromosome (SR-Y). Each has strengths and weaknesses for historians.
MHC or HLA is the most fine-grained of the three and can distinguish small differences. This is because its role is that of human defender in the eternal arms race between people and germs. In order to patrol the boundary between self and other, MHC-designed antibodies are always adapting to defeat each new germ innovation. Hence, MHC can change in few generations and can even differ between parent and child. The problem is that this can make it hard to see the forest for the trees -- large demographic trends can vanish among all the MHC detail. Another drawback is that parental MHC is scrambled at each generation. Both parents' sixth chromosomes are shuffled together like two decks of cards before being separated again into proper decks (but now with random backs) and passed on to children. This means that you cannot easily use MHC to track lineage.
The third source, SR-Y, is paternally inherited. Your father's SR-Y is almost precisely identical to his father's, and his father's, also going back forever. Although Native Americans would not call such paternal lineages "clans," SR-Y also identifies groups and subgroups of populations over the centuries. Copying errors in unused SR-Y regions happen faster than in mtDNA, but the principle is the same.
Molecular anthropology uncovers our ancient migrations by clarifying our history. The story told by MHC is the same story told by mtDNA, and it is the same story told by SR-Y. The tale goes like this. Our kind of people first appeared on earth 50 millennia ago, a thousand millennia after the dimmer, earlier version of human beings had already populated Africa and then tropical and sub-tropical Eurasia. I said that the earlier model of human was "dimmer" because they lacked art, religion, and the knack for technological innovation. Although their appearance changed gradually, their tool-making methods stayed the same for hundreds of millennia. They may even have been mute. Then we innovators exploded onto the African scene. Within just a few millennia we spread to every corner of the continent. By then, we had invented dozens of new technologies as well as needles and thread, clothing, painting, sculpture, and musical instruments. By then, we had also split into about twenty different clans. By then, also, a tiny band of us (less than 2,000) from one minor clan rafted seventeen miles across Bab el Mandeb and proceeded to colonize southern Asia all the way to Borneo and Australia. The other twenty clans (including most members of the breakaway group) remained in Africa.10
The breakaways' children spread north into Siberia, then west into Europe 35 millennia ago. We colonized Papua-New Guinea and down the Solomons as far as San Cristobal 30 millennia ago. We moved east across the Arctic and into the New World 14 millennia ago. We started colonizing the Pacific (Santa Cruz, Vanatu) 3 millennia ago, and finished up in New Zealand 1 millennium ago. By then, the entire prior, dimmer version of humans had long since vanished.
There were other migrations. Members of another African sub-clan moved across the Sinai 13 millennia ago, joined with people already in Mesopotamia, invented wheat agriculture, and then spread west across Europe (again). Similarly, shortly thereafter, waves of sorghum farmers spread east and south from Nigeria. Maize farmers spread north and south from Peru. And rice farmers spread west from the coast of southern China. These waves did not replace local hunter-gatherers. Their descendants' genes comprise 16-20% immigrant farmers from these later waves plus 80-84% local folks who simply switched technologies.
Finally, the largest migration by far that our species ever undertook flowed across the Atlantic to the New World between 1500 and 1800. As mentioned, the Americas were populated 12 millennia ago by descendants of the breakaway clan who migrated across Beringia. But then, rising sea levels when the last ice age ended cut them off from everyone else. Thus isolated, their MHC lagged far behind the rest of us in the ongoing global arms race against the germs. Columbus and those who followed him suddenly introduced Euro-Afro-Asian germs into the New World. Within a generation, 90 percent of Native Americans had died of diseases that their MHC could not recognize.
For the next three centuries, eleven million Africans and slightly more Europeans were carried across the Atlantic in sailing ships to repopulate the devastated New World. Most Africans came involuntarily (although some were indentured servants) and most Europeans volunteered (although some were sold into slavery). But, whether volunteers or slaves, Africans or Europeans, we came in our tens of millions and we promptly blended with the handful of surviving natives into a mixed population. The blending was total in Central and South America -- virtually every Ibero-American enjoys demographically proportional ancestry from both transatlantic sources. The blending was less thorough in North America; only 20 percent of White Americans have African ancestry since 1790, and only 70 percent of Black Americans have European ancestry since the same period. But thorough or not, like it or not, in North America and South, we are now blended.11
First, many people with African clan membership on both sides are utterly European-looking and vice-versa. This is easily explained. Recall that mtDNA traces mothers' mothers' mothers, while SR-Y traces fathers' fathers' fathers. Eight generations ago (in 1800, say), you had 256 ancestors. Only one of these was your matrilineal clan carrier, and only one was your patrilineal clan carrier. These two individuals may well have been Africans, but the other 254 could well have been Europeans, leaving you utterly European-looking. Similarly, many people of dual European clan membership are utterly African-looking. Again, your two clan carriers in 1800 may have been Europeans, but your other 254 ancestors may have been African. Hence, the first important finding is that neither mtDNA nor SR-Y can identify your "race." It cannot even hint at your predominant ancestry.12
The experiment is interesting anyway. You see, for individuals with split clans (maternal from Europe and paternal from Africa or vice-versa), it tells who married whom (or, rather, who bred with whom) in the very first knowable New World intermarriage within your personal ancestral line. This answers a question that has plagued historians for many years. Was Afro-European interbreeding in the New World mainly the result of male European masters raping female African slaves? Or was it (as it is today) mainly African males and European females? Admittedly, directionality of mating cannot tell who exploited whom, but it can give hints. For instance, there are several reasons to think it unlikely that female European slaveowners routinely forced male African slaves into servicing them. Hence, a preponderance of male Africans mating with female Europeans tends to disprove the whole idea of serious slavery-based sexual exploitation.
The second finding, as it turns out, is that Afro-European mating in the New World has been roughly gender-balanced for five centuries. It leans a bit (60-40) towards Afro-American males with Euro-American females in North America, with a similar slight lean the other way in South America. In other words, whenever you look during the past five centuries, the overall picture is that Black men in the New World have apparently dated White women about as often as the reverse.13
On the other hand, individual populations can differ significantly. The average African-American has 12-25 percent gene markers of European ancestry and, as mentioned, these gene markers are as likely to come from female as from male European ancestors. But the Geechee/Gullah people of the Sea Islands of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida have only 2-5 percent European gene markers -- less European ancestry than many modern West Africans. And this minuscule amount comes preponderantly from male European ancestors.14
In conclusion, molecular anthropology is now solving historical puzzles that we once thought were insoluble. If you believe, as I do, that ultimately we are all better off knowing the truth than living with sugar-coated myths, then molecular anthropology should be embraced and encouraged. But we must be vigilant and informed. Too many people's eyes go blank when you mention DNA, so racialists are quick to exploit ignorance among authorities, especially in the justice system. They are now using the jargon of molecular anthropology to revive the "race" notion more strongly than ever.
Dawn was lightening the sky over the treetops as the soldiers quietly surrounded the sleeping village to seal the perimeter. It was a nondescript town of perhaps 2000 souls, laid out in a six-by-six checkerboard of intersecting streets. It boasted a few shops, two bakeries, a butcher shop, two warehouses, three schools, and one church.The Bad News About Molecular Anthropology
From the most serious to the least worrisome, the misuses of molecular anthropology fall into three categories. First, it is reviving the "race" notion. Second, it is being used to detect hidden "racial" membership. Third, it is being used to discriminate against those of partial African ancestry.
Although there really are no biological "races" out there, the "race" notion is powerful and important in the same way as the Tooth Fairy -- as a ritual in many cultures. Decades ago, most anthropologists tried to bury the "race" notion by denying it scientific validity.
Some associate "race" with regional variation in appearance. Most people die within a few hundred miles of where they were born, and most marry someone local. Hence, English women look horsy (at least to me they do) and folks in the Yucatan resemble their nearby Mayan petroglyphs. You might not be able to tell a Sicilian from a Greek on sight, or a Swede from a Norwegian, but you can usually tell a Mediterranean native from a Scandinavian. And you can tell folks whose ancestors settled low latitudes 50,000 years ago by their dark brown skin. But precisely where you trace a "race" line through the human tapestry is your own social choice.
The second misuse of molecular anthropology is to detect hidden "racial" membership. The U.S. "race" notion is dangerous because it imparts a hidden stain, which then determines social status. This is fearfully destructive. For example, some American forensic anthropologists still believe that humanity can be classified into three or four biological "races." In fact, according to George W. Gill (photo at left), anthropology professor at the University of Wyoming, most physical anthropologists "believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real." Gill says that most anthropologists can detect hidden Negro-ness inside utterly European-looking people who are "passing." As he puts it, "I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from [bone measurements] than from looking at living people standing before me." Dr. Gill is not troubled that forensic anthropologists in Puerto Rico, Morocco, or South Africa consider his belief in hidden "race" ridiculous.5The Good News About Molecular Anthropology
The good news about molecular anthropology is that it is solving age-old puzzles of our past. Three examples are: It uncovers our ancient migrations. It reveals our intimate commonality. It exposes our past marriage patterns.
The second source, mtDNA, is inherited only maternally. Hence, your mtDNA is almost precisely identical to your mother's, and her mother's, and her mother's, going back forever. Following Seminole and Cherokee tradition, we call such an unending maternal lineage, a "clan." That it delineates matrilineal clans makes mtDNA useful in tracing ancestry and migrations. I said "almost precisely identical" because every ten millennia or so, a copying error in an unused mtDNA region is passed on. (Incidentally, much of our DNA is unused. For one thing, some of it encodes features that our particular species does not use, like gill shape or fin stiffness. DNA glitches in unused regions are passed on. Glitches in useful DNA are not passed on -- they are called miscarriages.) These harmless errors create sub-clans. For example, if only one clan existed 50 millennia ago, then two sub-clans (the original and the first glitch) would have existed 40 millennia ago, four would have existed 30 millennia ago, eight 20 millennia ago, sixteen 10 millennia ago, and so on. On the other hand, many women die without raising daughters, so some clans die out.9
Molecular anthropology also reveals our intimate commonality. We already know that the Afrocentrist image of one "African" culture is false. From Cairo to Casablanca to Cape Town, Africa is a kaleidoscope of thousands of cultures. It turns out that Africa is also a rich genetic mosaic. For 50 millennia, the breakaway band's descendants around the globe have continued to split into sub-clans and sub-sub-clans, but always carrying the DNA markers of the original small brave band that paddled from Djibouti to Yemen. Meanwhile, the twenty clans that remained in Africa (including the stay-at-home members of the breakaway clan) also continued splitting into sub-clans over the centuries. Consequently, there is far more genetic diversity (twenty clans) within Africa than around the entire rest of the globe (one clan). In other words, an Australian Aborigine, an Amazonian Indian, and a Frenchman are far more closely related, as blood kin, than are typical members of adjacent Nigerian villages. And this explains the transplant rejection problem mentioned earlier. It is not that an Afro-American's MHC is likely to reject a Euro-American transplant. The problem is that MHC from any spot in Africa is so unique that it tends to reject a transplant from any other spot on earth, even from a nearby African village, unless it is from a close relative.
Our blending means that many of us are members of clans from different origins. In other words, your mtDNA matrilineal clan may have come to the New World from Africa (from one of the nineteen clans who did not break away and swim to Asia 50 millennia ago), while your SR-Y patrilineal DNA may have come from Europe (from a non-African sub-clan of the breakaway group) or vice-versa. Determining your mtDNA and SR-Y clan memberships is straightforward and requires only a Q-tip wiped across the inside of your cheek. Experiments to collect such data from thousands of New World residents have revealed the following.
The third finding contrasts dramatically with the second. The matings of incoming colonists (European or African) with Native Americans were very gender-unbalanced. Almost 90 percent of such matings involved a transatlantic (European or African) male and a Native American female. Apparently, Native American males were somehow prevented from mating with either European or African females.
2 Robert F. Murray Jr., "Skin Color and Blood Pressure: Genetics or Environment?" The Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb 6, 1991 v265 n5 p639(2); Stephanie Irby Coard and others, "Perceptions of and Preferences for Skin Color, Black Racial Identity, and Self-Esteem Among African Americans," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Nov 2001 v31 i11 p2256(19); Mark E. Hill, "Color Differences in the Socioeconomic Status of African American Men: Results of a Longitudinal Study," Social Forces, June 2000 v78 i4 p1437.
3 The American Anthropological Association's official position on the "race" notion is at www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm.
4 For details, including some examples on FDA drug approvals, use RealPlayer to view "Buried Alive! The Concept of Race in Science" at URL http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/wals050901.ram. Instructions can be found in Interracial Voice Letters to the Editor for July 2002 from "Tracy" t.cope@starpower.net on 12 Jul 2002 and 13 Jul 2002.
5 See URL www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html.
6 See URL http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/negroid/negroid.html.
7 "Buried Alive! The Concept of Race in Science," see note 4.
8 Ibid.
9 The most entertaining telling of this tale using molecular anthropology is Bryan Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, 1st American ed. (New York: Norton, 2001). I highly recommend this book.
10 Ibid.
11 Robert S. Stuckert, "The African Ancestry of the White American Population," Ohio Journal of Science 55, no. May (1958): 155-160.
12 A Howard University laboratory promises, for a fee, to identify your ancestral place of origin in Africa. This is misleading. The only thing that they identify is your father's SR-Y clan. The other 255 ancestors that you had in, say, 1800 might have come from someplace else entirely.
13 Maria Cátira Bortolini and others, "African-Derived South American Populations: A History of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Matings According to Sex Revealed by Bi- and Uni-parental Genetic Markers," American Journal of Human Biology, 11:551-563 (1999); C. Bravi and others, "Characterization of Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome Haplotypes in a Uruguayan Population of African Ancestry," Human Biology 69:641-652; C.L. Hsieh and others, "Mitochondrial and Nuclear Variants in a US Black Population: Origin of a Hybrid Population," Annual of Human Genetics 56:105-112; D.A. Merriwether and others, "Mitochondrial vs Nuclear Admixture Estimates Demonstrate a Past History of Directional Mating," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102:153-159; J.C. Martinez Cruzado and others, "Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Substantial Native American Ancestry in Puerto Rico," Human Biology, August 2001, v. 73, no. 4, p. 491-511; Mónica Sans and others, "Unequal Contributions of Male and Female Gene Pools From Parental Populations in the African Descendants of the City of Melo, Uruguay," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 118:33-44 (2002); Batista dos Santos, S. E., Rodrigues, J. D., Ribeiro-dos-Santos, A. K. and Zago, M. A. (1999). "Differential Contribution of Indigenous Men and Women to the Formation of an Urban Population in the Amazon Region as Revealed by mtDNA and Y-DNA." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 109(2):175-180.
14 E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114 (2001):18-29.
 |
 |
©2003 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.