GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119678715
From: (Raymond Whritenour)
Subject: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:51:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: ellen Levy <email@example.com>'s message of Fri, 24 Jun2005 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
"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 at all! Those appearing earliest in the archaeological record
constitute the aboriginal population; while the descendants of all of
these migrants are indigenous and native.
"And later waves of people, even ones arriving in the historical people
[?period], eventually become 'aboriginal' themselves."
ONLY when the successive waves of people are lumped together in an
artificial category (e.g., "First Nations" or "Britains").
"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."
This is because the Eskimos did not supplant any existing populations in
the lands they inhabited. The Navajo most definitely displaced an
existing aboriginal population when they moved into what is now the
southwestern United States. All "Native Americans" are aboriginal to
the Western Hemisphere, but they are not all aboriginal to the smaller
land areas they have inhabited.