GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119673800


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.1.20050624235902.01d00b58@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca>


Peter, your comment about Paul Revere had me rolling
on the ground with laughter.

But I must ask, what would the population "indigenous"
to the British Isles look like in terms of
haplogroups? You mention indications of habitation in
the British Isles going back 10,000 years. That
doesn't mean that modern populations in the British
Isles carry any significant amounts of genetic
inheritance from these ancestors. No do we have any
clear idea of what haplogroups predominated 10,000
years ago in the British Isles. I think the studies
on ancient Basque remains, which are only dating back
to 3000 BC, are a good example of discontinuity
(genetically-speaking) between present and past
populations of a region. We may wish there was
continuity and a close genetic link, but that doesn't
make it so. It appears that modern populations have
changed quite dramatically from their ancestral
sources. Evolution still at work, perhaps??

Furthermore, there wasn't a continuous habitation of
Britain by the same group of people from 10,000 BC
onwards. There were successive waves of people during
the Neolithic and post-Neolithic who appear to have
come from continental Europe to the British Isles. We
know this from the archaeological record and
similarities in cultural remains between the British
Isles and Spain & France. It would be impossible to
determine which of these waves of people are
"indigenous" or "native" or "aboriginal" (not to
mention how or if they differed from each other
genetically).

And later waves of people, even ones arriving in the
historical people, eventually become "aboriginal"
themselves. The Native Americans are a perfect
example of this. We don't say that the Q Native
Americans are "aboriginal" while the latecomer
haplogroups to the Americas, ancestors to the Eskimos
for example, are simply invaders or "non-aboriginal."
No, they are all aboriginal to the Europeans who
arrived here only a few hundred years ago. Who is
truly "aboriginal" is in the eye of the beholder.

The same can be said of "aboriginal" British. Let's
say that Britain was inhabited initially by successive
waves of R1b and I around 5000 BC, then a few E3b & J
waves tricked in at 3000 BC, and R1a stragglers at
1000 BC. Now, to the R1a invaders, E3b & J & R1b & I
ALL looked "indigenous." By the time the Romans
invaded in the historical period, all the prior
haplogroups were considered "indigenous." To say that
only the R1b & I were "indigenous", but the E3b which
has been there for 5000 years isn't is, in my opinion,
drawing unnecessary distinctions.

Ellen Coffman



This thread: