GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119699724
From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:42:04 -0300
References: <ellen Levy <email@example.com><6882-42BCF0FBfirstname.lastname@example.org>
>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.
As an example of my point about your classification let
me ask you how this would be interpreted.
The native Hindu people of Scotland are celbrating their
history. Most are indigenous to Glasgow and Edinburgh
where there is a significant aborignal population.
It covers your classification preferences but how does
it help anyone?
|Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc." by "Peter A. Kincaid" <>|