Races of Craniofacial Anthropology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first known racial classification system was created in the 17th century when a French doctor named Francois Bernier divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and finally Blacks who he described as having wooly hair, thick lips, and very white teeth.^[1] The first major scientific model was created in 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races based simply on skin tones found in the major continents: Europeanus which he labled the white race, Asiatic, which he labled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.^[2] Linnaeus' protege, anthropology founder Johann Blumenbach completed the model by adding the brown race, which he called "Malay" for Polynesisians and Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and for aborigines of Australia.^[3] According to Dinesh D'Souza, "Blumenbach's classification had a lasting influence in part because his categories neatly broke down into the familiar colors: white, black, yellow, red, and brown."^[4] Gradually the "yellow" and "red" races got lumped together, and the brown race ignored because of its small population, yielding just three races commonly known as mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid^[5]. The last term is derived from Negro which is a Spanish adjective for black.^[6] Some anthropologists added the brown race back in as an Australoid category (which includes aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago)^[7], and viewed it as separate from negroids (often lumping Australoids in with caucasoids) despite the fact that their skin is also dark.^[8] In the 1970s the term black replaced negro in the United States.^[9].

University of Western Ontario professor J. Phillipe Rushton states: according to the estimates provided by Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994) since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into the Middle East and Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Eastern Asia 70,000 years after that, a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, a Caucasoid is someone whose ancestors were born in the Middle East or Europe, and mutatis mutandis for a Mongoloid^[10]. Richard Klein has modern humans not leaving Africa and successfully colonizing the rest of the world until 50,000 years B.P., giving modern racial groups a more recent common ancestry than Rushton's model provides.

Anthropologist Thomas Huxley believed that India is predominantly Australoid.^[11] Genetecist Cavalli-Sforza contradicts this theory, writing on page 119 of The Great Human Diasporas: "The Caucasoids are mainly fair-skinned peoples, but this group also includes the southern Indians (Dravidians), who live in tropical areas and show signs of a marked darkening in skin pigmentation, however their facial and body traits are Caucasoid rather than African or Australoid. In his book The Real Eve, Stephen Oppenheimer hypothesized South Asia as the post-African origin of Eurasian peoples, with Caucasoids/Western Eurasians evolving in Northern India and Pakistan and Mongoloids/Eastern Eurasians evolving in easternmost India and Nepal. Oppenheimer's conclusions are primarily based on genetic research. Mongoloid designated the people of East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Eastern portion of Central Asia, the Americas, Greenland, Polynesia and the easternmost regions of South Asia. Australoid designated the people of Melanesia, Micronesia and Australia's aboriginal population. Finally, Capoid (denoted the Khoi and San populations of Southern Africa) and Congoid are the two main divisions of the negroid branch of humanity.

These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as craniofacial anthropometry, but have fallen somewhat in scientific use over the past century. The terms appear in two main usages today. They are used in forensic anthropology, and they are used in several fields as euphemisms for terms that came to be seen as offensive by some about thirty years ago. In the past, they were more widely used in craniofacial anthropometry in phylogeography.

• For an explanation of human genetic variation, see human genetic variation.
• For an overview of the different social interpretations of race, see social interpretations of race.

Contents 1 Origin of the terms in craniofacial anthropometry 2 Strict usage as skull types in forensics 3 Genetic confirmation 4 Imprecise usage as labels for human classification 4.1 Admixture mapping 4.2 "Ethnic" medicine 5 Past usages 5.1 Phylogeography 5.2 Classism via racialism 6 Footnotes 7 External links

[edit] Origin of the terms in craniofacial anthropometry

In professional peer-reviewed venues today, the terms Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid are used in two different ways. First, they are used in the strict original sense of defined skull types. This usage is found today only in forensics. Second, they are used less precisely as labels for the classification of human populations, classifications that are usually called "races" but are sometimes euphemized as clusters, clines, ethnicities, and the like. There are people specifically in each Asian region which have halves of each social group. eg. Tsinoy, Mestizo

The terms' original strict usage as skull types sprang from a technique known as craniofacial anthropometry. The technique is used in physical anthropology and comprises precise and systematic measurement of the bones of the human skull. Among its more important applications are: forensics, facial reconstruction, and paleoanthropology. The field of phylogeography, on the other hand, once relied heavily on this technique but no longer does so.^[12] For more on skull types as determined by craniofacial anthropometry, please see that specific article.

[edit] Strict usage as skull types in forensics

Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of physical anthropology and human osteology (the study of the human skeleton) in a legal setting, most often in criminal cases where the victim's remains are more or less skeletonized. A forensic anthropologist can also assist in the identification of deceased individuals whose remains are decomposed, burned, mutilated or otherwise unrecognizable. The adjective "forensic" refers to the application of this subfield of science to a court of law.

Although their methodology is seemingly objective, forensic anthropologists agree that attempts to apply criteria from craniofacial anthropometry, regularly yield counter-intuitive results depending upon the weight given to each feature. Their application invariably results in finding some East and South Indians to have "Negroid" skulls and others to have "Caucasoid" skulls, for example, while Ethiopians, Somalis, and some Zulus have "Caucasoid" skulls, and the Khoisan of southwestern Africa have "Mongoloid" skulls.

In addition, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers that would forensically categorize them as "Negroid."^[13] And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.^[14] In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.^[15] In practice, the application of such forensic criteria ultimately comes down to whether the skull "looks Negroid," "Caucasoid," or "Mongoloid" in the eye of each U.S. forensic practitioner.

Although such subjectivity makes the practice of forensic anthropology an imperfect science, it does not invalidate it in the eyes of its practitioners or of the U.S. judicial system. The point made is that the "racial" type of any specific skull need not (and sometimes does not) reflect the socio-political ethnic group with which which the skull's owner was affiliated in life. For details, see: Challenges to the "Races" of Skulls.

[edit] Genetic confirmation

According to Arthur Jensen the traditional races of physical anthropology have been more or less confirmed by the research of Cavalli-Sforza.

On pgs 430-431 of the g factor Jensen writes:

Cavalli-Sforza et al. transformed the distance matrix to a correlation matrix consisting of 861 correlation coefficients among the forty-two populations, so they could apply principal components (PC) analysis on their genetic data...PC analysis is a wholly objective mathematical procedure. It requires no decisions or judgments on anyone's part and yields identical results for everyone who does the calculations correctly...The important point is that if various populations were fairly homogenous in genetic composition, differing no more genetically than could be attributable only to random variation, a PC analysis would not be able to cluster the populations into a number of groups according to their genetic propinquity. In fact, a PC analysis shows that most of the forty-two populations fall very distinctly into the quadrents formed by using the first and second principal component as axes...They form quite widely separated clusters of the various populations that resemble the "classic" major racial groups-Caucasoids in the upper right, Negroids in the lower right, North East Asians in the upper left, and South East Asians (including South Chinese) and Pacific Islanders in the lower left...I have tried other objective methods of clustering on the same data (varimax rotation of the principal components, common factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis). All of these types of analysis yield essentially the same picture and identify the same major racial groupings.

Elsewhere in Jensen's writings, he equates North East Asians with mongoloids, which along with Caucasoids and Negroids, form what Jensen describes as the three broadest population groups. To test the reliability of these broadgroupings, Jensen performed his own independent varimax rotated principal component analysis described on paged 518 of the g factor:

I have used a somewhat different collection of only 26 populations from around the world that were studied by the population genetecists Nei & Roychoudhury (1993), whose article provides the genetic distance matrix among the 26 population samples, based on 29 polymorphic genes with 121 alleles...Note that some groups have major and minor loadings on different components, which represent not discrete categories, but central tendencies. The six rotated components can display clusters that can be identified as follows: (1) Mongoloids, (2) Caucasoids, (3) Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders, (4) Negroids, (5) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans. The genetic groupings are clearly similar to those obtained by Cavali-Sforza et al. using other methods applied to other samples. It should be noted however that Cavali-Sforza himself denies that race is a useful concept on the genetic level, and that unlike Jensen, most anthropologists have traditionally recognized only the three main races (lumping South East Asians, Amerindians, and Eskimos in with Mongoloids and some have considered aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans to be Caucasoid).

Jensen is not alone in merging traditional racial lables like mongoloid and caucasoid with modern advances in genetics nor is he alone in separating Southeast Asians from the mongoloid race. According to The Human Species (2003) and Physical Anthropology, humanity can be divided into two major braches: the African branch and the non-African branch. The non-African branch includes two subgroups, one Eurasian and the other Oceanic. The Eurasian and Oceanic branches are the products of this common origin. The Eurasian branch split into the Caucasoid and Mongoloid branches. The Mongoloid branch then divided into the East Asian subgroup and the Amerindian subgroup. The Oceanic branch divided into the Southeast Asian subgroup and the Pacific Islander subgroup. According to The Human Species (2003), East Asians generally are more genetically similar to the South Asians than to Southeast Asians, because the Far East and the Indian Subcontinent are members of the Eurasian branch while Southeast Asians (including southern Chinese) are members or the Oceanic branch. More interestingly, Asians have very local genetic clusters inside these regions, implying different Asian ethnic groups have not historically intermarried with each other. Examples of localized genetic clusters include Japan, Korea, Mongolia and China which form separate genetic clusters from each other.^[16][17]

The following chart by Cavalli-Sforza shows the genetic distance between the major races that Jensen describes and the separate branches they sit on:

[edit] Imprecise usage as labels for human classification

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

The terms "Caucasoid," "Negroid," "Mongoloid," and similar ones with the "oid" suffix are also used in several fields as euphemisms for racialist terms that came to be seen as offensive about fifty years ago. Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology has fallen steadily over the past century. Where 78 percent of the articles in the 1931 Journal of Physical Anthropology employed these or similar synonymous terms reflecting a bio-race paradigm, only 36 percent did so in 1965, and just 28 percent did in 1996.^[18] In February, 2001, the editors of the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine asked authors to no longer use "race" as explanatory variable nor to use obsolescent terms. Others prestigious peer-reviewed journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health have done the same.^[19] Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health recently issued a program announcement for grant applications through February 1, 2006, specifically seeking researchers who can investigate and publicize among primary care physicians the detrimental effects on the nation's health of the practice of medical racial profiling using such terms. The program announcement quoted the editors of one journal as saying that, "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex." ^[20]

Two criticisms are often leveled at the usage of these terms in scientific venues. The first objection to Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and similar terms is that they perpetuate the politically incorrect notion that H. sapiens can genetically be divided into a specific set of 3-8 distinct groups, clusters, clines, races, breeds, varieties, or subspecies, which can then be objectively delineated. Humanity can be grouped or classified in many different ways, of course, either genetically (as, for instance, by blood type, lactose tolerance, skin tone, or the neutral markers of prehistoric migrations) or politically (as in EEOC regulations or the exhortations of Pan-Black Afrocentrists, for example). And whether any such classification scheme matches any particular individual's notion of "race" depends entirely upon the individual. As R.S. Cooper puts it, "Each time the technical facade of these racialist arguments is destroyed, the latest jargon and half-truths from the margins of science are used to rebuild them around the same core belief in Black inferiority. Because race is in part a genetic concept, the advent of molecular DNA technology has opened an important new chapter in this story. Unfortunately, the article... begins from mistaken premises and merely restates the racialist view using the terminology of molecular genetics."^[21] For a more complete discussion of this debate, see the main article Race.

The second objection is more pertinent to this discussion. It is that since such terms lack a current consensus denotation in science, their use makes papers difficult if not impossible to understand. A sampling of such criticisms in scholarly peer-reviewed professional papers include:

• "Race equality as a matter of governance has gained momentum in most Western countries and is reflected in race/ethnicity data collection in administrative systems and the attention accorded to terminology by census agencies. However, the vocabulary of health care--both in its literature and the language of officialdom--has proved resistant to the use of this lexicon of acceptable terms.... What makes such language racist is the historical legacy it carries--that is, its symbolic importance."^[22]
• "We find that commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of the inferred genetic clusters.... We note, however, that the complexity of human demographic history means that there is no obvious natural clustering scheme, nor an obvious appropriate degree of resolution."^[23]
• "Although quality research in this field is most welcome, concern is mounting over the confusing and often inappropriate labeling of populations under study."^[24]
• "Given the widespread and often inconsistent use of this terminology in both text and tables, resulting in confusion or ambiguity about the populations being described, it is important that this issue is addressed."^[25]
• "Medical definitions of race have lagged behind [in the elimination of the imprecise and inaccurate terms Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid]...."^[26]

Some critics go on to affirm that usage of these terms (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid) has declined in recent years. According to a current undergraduate physical anthropology text, "...Europeans, Africans, and Asians (often referred to by the archaic terms 'Caucasoid,' 'Negroid', and 'Mongoloid,' which are almost never used in scientific research today - this is a contradiction, please edit)."^[27] According to M.A. Winkler "thankfully the former Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid rarely appear in biomedical literature."^[28]

And yet, although many scholarly articles criticize usage of the terms}, the terms continue to appear in the literature. Such usages generally fall into two groups: admixture mapping and "ethnic" medicine. However, non-scientifically even governments in censuses continue to use terms such as caucasian rather than European. Mongoloid and Negroid and all similar terms, however, have fell out of use, mainly because the latter was used frequently in pre-Civil Rights America to describe African-Americans ("negroid" and "negroes, as well as the extremely offensive "nigger") and has become unpopular with most people as many prefer to use "black", "African-American/British/French etc." or "Afro-Caribbean". Mongoloid has become unpopular because it was used to describe people with Down's Syndrome (because of the "almond" eyes of people with the condition) and this is also now seen as both extremely racist and discriminatory, as well as the term confusion with the Mongolian people. Curiously, however, mulatto (reportedly meaning "son of a mule") continues to be used freely as a term for mixed-race in scientific and popular usage, while the term half-cast is seen as racist.

[edit] Admixture mapping

A few recent articles use the terms of interest and similar ones as synonymous for continent-of-ancestry regarding ancestry-informative markers. E.g.: "Cuban subjects average 40% Caucasoid, 40% Negroid, and 20% Mestizoid DNA markers," rather than the more common and standard ""Cuban subjects average 40% European, 40% African, and 20% Native American DNA markers." This usage is particularly strange since the coinage "mestizoid" is illogical. Rather than denoting a known phenotype, "mestizo" is simply the Spanish word for a person of indeterminate Spanish with Native American admixture. Even so, it must be said that most admixture mapping articles use the more standard current terms: "European," "African," etc. Click here to see a table showing a typical array of 39 DNA markers used to identify the ancestral continent of origin of New-World peoples.^[29]

For details on admixture mapping, see the main article: Admixture Mapping.

[edit] "Ethnic" medicine

Some medical research into ethnicity-dependent diseases determines patient/subject ethnicity by questionnaire. This is because asking someone their "ethnicity" is sometimes a more reliable indicator of socio-political identity group than either craniofacial anthropometry or DNA markers. Nevertheless, researchers sometimes report the results of studies of disease and disease resistance associated with questionnaire-based ethnic self-identity as "races," and they employ the old craniofacial anthropometry terms "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid."^[30] It is hard to grasp why they do this, since it might be simpler, less confusing to the reader, and surely no more offensive, if they just reported the actual terms from their "ethnicity" questionnaire (usually "White," "Black," or "Asian").

[edit] Past usages

[edit] Phylogeography

Phylogeography (see main article) is the science of identifying and tracking major long-distance migrations that bands of humans undertook, especially in prehistoric times. For a detailed account of Human migrations see that article. Before the discovery of the DNA code, the terms of interest were often used. There was never any consistency among the different ways of classifying human populations around the globe, other than mere use of the term "races." Probably the most influential system in the United States was that devised by craniofacial anthropometrist Carleton S. Coon.^[31] Almost all such classification schemes have included the term "Caucasoid." Coon's system was unique in that it discarded "Negroid," split sub-Saharan African into Congoid and Capoid, and split the far east into Mongoloid and Australoid. For details, see the article: Craniofacial Anthropometry In Phylogeography.

The terms Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid began to fall out of favor in phylography when the field switched from depending upon craniofacial anthropometry to using DNA markers. DNA reveals that human variation is far more complex (and ironically, that humans are far more alike genetically) than could ever have been imagined in the past.

Another problem with applying terms from craniofacial anthropometry to phylogeography was that some anthropologists saw similarities between European and Neandertal skulls. Recent DNA studies have conclusively shown that Neandertals were a separate species.

[edit] Classism via racialism

The terms "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" have been used in the past to justify racism. Because of this usage in the past the terms were also co-opted into supporting the British class system.

After Darwin popularized the idea that humans are descended from apes, the prognathous (protruding) jaw became a sign of lower development and of a closer relationship to primitive man. It also became the basis of much racial stereotyping of the Irish, and racial anthropologists argued that working class people were more prognathous than their social superiors- who were- self-flatteringly described as also biologically superior. In his very influential book, The Races of Man (1862), John Beddoe, the future president of the Anthropological Institute, emphasized the vast difference between the prognathous (protruding) and orthognathous (less prominent) jawed people of Britain. These were terms originally The Irish, Welsh, and significantly, the lower class people, were among the prognathous, whereas all men of genius were orthognathous. (Beddoe also developed an Index of Nigressence, from which he argued that the Irish were close to Cro-Magnon man and thus had links with the "Africinoid" races!) These activities were reminiscent of Pieter Camper's theory of a 'facial angle'. One should emphasize, however, that such craniological and anthropometric studies "always represented a minority" of the papers presented at the Anthropological Institute, 1871-1899. These late nineteenth-century anatomical and anthropological descriptions of 'races' and their characteristics, measurements etc. were later the inspiration for the sort of mid twentieth-century racial anthropology as promulgated in Nazi Germany. (Anthony S. Wohl & John van Wyhe, [3])

[edit] Footnotes

1. ^ The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza pg 123, 1995
2. ^ [1]
3. ^ The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, pg 402, 1996
4. ^ The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza, pg 124, 1995
5. ^ [[2]]
6. ^ http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:lDEuCwny0QIJ:www.codesria.org/Links/Publications/bulletin1 04/keita.pdf++Black+webster+Negro+equivalent+sets&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1
7. ^ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Australoid
8. ^ http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2007
9. ^ http://www.poynter.org/content/content print.asp?id=51320&custom=
10. ^ http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/rushton_view_race.html
11. ^ Huxley, Thomas. On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind. 1870. August 14, 2006. <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/SM3/GeoDis.html>.
12. ^ The current standard reference is John C. Kolar and Elizabeth M. Salter, Craniofacial Anthropometry: Practical Measurement of the Head and Face for Clinical, Surgical, and Research Use (Springfield IL: C.C. Thomas, 1997).
13. ^ Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa," Human Genetics 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99.
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, Figure 1.
15. ^ Carol Channing, Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black (New York: Dutton, 1995)
16. ^ John Relethford, The Human Species: An introduction to Biological Anthropology, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003). - +
17. ^ Philip L. Stein and Bruce M. Rowe, Physical Anthropology, 8th ed. (McGraw-Hill, 1996)
18. ^ Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, "Perishing Paradigm: Race—1931-99," American Anthropologist 105, no. 1 (2003): 110-13. A following article in the same issue, by Mat Cartmill and Kaye Brown, questions the precise rate of decline, but agrees that the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavor.
19. ^ Frederick P. Rivara and Laurence Finberg, "Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity," Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 155, no. 2 (2001): 119. For similar author's guidelines, see Robert S. Schwartz, "Racial Profiling in Medical Research," The New England Journal of Medicine, 344 (no, 18, May 3, 2001); M.T. Fullilove, "Abandoning 'Race' as a Variable in Public Health Research: An Idea Whose Time has Come," American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1998), 1297-1298; and R. Bhopal and L. Donaldson, "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health." American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1998), 1303-1307.
20. ^ See program announcement and requests for grant applications at the NIH website, at URL: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-03-057.html.
21. ^ R.S. Cooper, "Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina," American Psychologist, 2005 Jan Vol 60(1) 71-76.
22. ^ P. Aspinall, " Language matters: the vocabulary of racism in health care," Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 2005 Jan;10(1):57-9.
23. ^ James F. Wilson et al., "Population genetic structure of variable drug response," Nature Genetics 29, 265 - 269 (2001).
24. ^ R. Bhopal e al., "Editors' practice and views on terminology in ethnicity and health research," Ethnicity & Health, 1997 Aug;2(3):223-7.
25. ^ P.J. Aspinall, "Collective Terminology to Describe the Minority Ethnic Population: The Persistence of Confusion and Ambiguity in Usage," Sociology, Volume 36(4): 804. This is an excellent overview of the problem of researcher writers inserting euphemistic (thereby meaningless) terminology into science papers. If you read only one peer-reviewed, highly respected article on the topic, this is the one to read.
26. ^ M.A. Winker, "Measuring Race and Ethnicity: Why and How?," The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2004 Oct 6;292(13):1612-4.
27. ^ John Relethford, The Human Species: An introduction to Biological Anthropology, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003), page 126.
28. ^ M.A. Winker, "Measuring Race and Ethnicity: Why and How?," The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2004 Oct 6;292(13):1612-4.
29. ^ Click here to browse a very large collection of serious, peer-reviewed articles on admixture mapping that are organized/inded by regions of the world: Molecular Anthropology and Genetics.
30. ^ See, for example, Enrique Gonzalez, Mike Bamshad, et al.,"Race-specific HIV-1 disease-modifying effects associated with CCR5 haplotypes," PNAS October 12, 1999 u vol. 96 u no. 21 (1999), pages 12004–12009.
31. ^ Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf, 1962).

[edit] External links

• Caucasoid Subraces Classification by Carleton S. Coon.