GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119702887
From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:34:47 -0300
I agree with most of what you are saying. This is my
point in not using native/indigenous/aboriginal terms
to classify the various historical groups of people in
the British Isles. To me confusion is limited when we
are specific to a culturally different people in a specific
place and time period.
For example the Campsie area of Scotland (my area
of interest) was first occupied by a "Neolithic people"
known for being the builders of the Clyde-Carlingford
chambered cairns. They are a distinct group but not
unlike those in other parts of Scotland and Ireland.
These people were then impacted by the arrival of
the new people in the Bronze age known as the
Beaker people. Thus, we have two groups that are
identified by a specific place and time who had a
different culture. Up to the time of the Romans
there were other arrivals. When Ptolemy came
he noted that the people existing on the island had
organized themselves into tribes that must have considered
themselves different from other tribes. Otherwise, he
would not have called them by a different name. We know
the names of these tribes and roughly where they were
located. I equate this with the arrival of the Europeans
to North America. There were a number of tribes here
before them and these are identified separately and
by locale. The tribes of my area when the Europeans
arrived were identified as the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and
Thus, by being specific to the people in a place and
time period one avoids the ambiguity caused by the
native/indigenous/aboriginal labels. As far as their DNA
it is my understanding that over time we can have a good
idea what their DNA was like due to genetic diversity
caused by time. There are ways to sort through the
SNP trees. Who knows what the future hold in terms of
At 01:30 AM 25/06/2005, you wrote:
>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
>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.
>Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
>Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:
|Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc." by "Peter A. Kincaid" <>|