GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119716157
From: "Russ _" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:15:57 -0400
>From: ellen Levy <>
You give a scenario that has R1b coming in at the beginning of the Neolithic
Age in Western Europe. The neolithic revolution moved from the east to the
west. However, R1b's gradient goes from west to east, the opposite
>Subject: Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
>Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
>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:
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!