GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119662801


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Haplogroup F*
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:26:41 -0300
References: <20050625000910.66411.qmail@web52101.mail.yahoo.com><auto-000003721127@mail1.warpdriveonline.com>
In-Reply-To: <auto-000003721127@mail1.warpdriveonline.com>


At 10:00 PM 24/06/2005, you wrote:

> > These might be a very basic questions, but how exactly
> > has it been determined that haplogroup I was not
> > "indigenous" to the British Isles? Furthermore, the
> > definition of "indigenous" is a bit problematic.
>
>This is more or less the question that I asked. It seems to me that
>simply saying that R1b is 'indigenous' and that haplogroup I came with the
>Viking invaders is exactly the kind of chauvinistic oversimplification that
>I've been accused of by several people.
>

I disagree that a population indigenous to the British Isles
is problematic. There are traces of modern man throughout
the island ever since the present interglacial period began more
than 10,000 years ago. About 8000 years ago they were
afforded extra protection from foreigners when the North Sea
Land Bridge flooded for good. Surely this population is
distinguishable somehow from the continental populations due to
the founder effect.

Best wishes!

Peter



This thread: