|
Post by Racial Reality on Dec 9, 2003 8:59:22 GMT -5
The following passage is from that Chikhi et al. 2002 study which postulated a larger Neolithic influence in Europe than previously estimated. The authors also discovered something new about Sardinians...
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Dec 9, 2003 9:36:37 GMT -5
Excellent find. I've noticed that you need to be careful when dealing with small, isolated populations, such as those found on islands.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 10, 2003 10:47:18 GMT -5
Hehe.... I wonder how Montenegrins will fare in such tests.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 28, 2004 8:42:36 GMT -5
Sardinia is not a small island, in fact it is large but mountainous. Sardinians are ethnically mixed are they not? There was an Iberian presence there and Spanish languages spoken there. The results for Sardinia have to be taken with a large dose of salt. It is an island and leaves it open to founder effect, genetic drift, immigration effects and local extinction events. As Cavalli-Sforza said it indeed is an outlier genetically.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on May 28, 2004 8:49:23 GMT -5
Would Malta show similar results?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on May 28, 2004 9:27:46 GMT -5
Dont think so, Malta is more mixed.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 28, 2004 10:41:52 GMT -5
There is a Maltese type, it is not common, but it is there. The average Maltese is very mixed, not because of the megalith builders or the Phoenicians or the Romans and so on, but because of the deportation of the inhabitants of Celano to Malta and the not so chaste actions of some Knights of Malta who came from various parts of Catholic Europe as their langues (national headquarters) attest. So what I am saying is that the Y chromosomes of Maltese men would produce a rather confusing array of results. mtDNA would probably be less varied. But I have to agree with Agrippa, the Maltese are too mixed and would give bizarre results of no real use to studying the genetic history of Europe.
|
|