Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119720649

From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup F* & what's indigenous
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:30:49 -0400

I think Ellen makes some good points in this posting:

> These might be a very basic questions, but how exactly
> has it been determined that haplogroup I was not
> "indigenous" to the British Isles? Furthermore, the
> definition of "indigenous" is a bit problematic.
> .....
> ...If a haplo. G British individual's
> ancestor has been in the region for 1800 years, is
> that any less "indigenous" or native than an R1b that
> has been there for 3000 years, or an R1a there for
> 1200 years? When does a haplogroup become
> "indigenous" to a region? Furthermore, how can you
> determine when certain haplogroups, such as G or J or
> E3b or I, reached the British Isles?

Well, people are getting perhaps too exercised over the use of
"indigenous," but it is a significant question. I think it ought to be
clear that it can only be used in a relative sense: one population is
indigenous in relation to another, when the first population has
inhabited a territory for a far longer time than the newcomers. And
ideally, the indigenous population should be the first one ever to have
inhabited the place. But the specifics of this are obviously somewhat
variable and subjective. Part of the trouble is that there are so many
different beliefs and emotions regarding what rights and privileges are
implied by having indigenous status in a place.

What's more interesting to me right now in Ellen's question is the point
that we don't really know for sure that R1b was the only indigenous
haplogroup in the British Isles. Yes, I'm modifying what I said
earlier. It seems to me that she could be right that haplogroup I
people, or at least some of their ancestors, could have been there about
the same time.

In the 2000 paper I recently mentioned by Underhill, they propose that
the first group to enter Europe in the Upper Paleolithic could have been
haplogroup F people: "A . . . western expansion of M89 . . . Levantine
populations would have taken [them] to Europe as the earliest Upper
Paleolithic occupaton of the area."
"However," they note, "its appearance in Europe is very low . . .
indicating that few of these lineages have survived to the present,
possibly having been replaced in Europe by related M170 [I] lineages."
They propose that this group correlates with the "very early . . . mtDNA
U5 lineages [that] survive in about 7% of European women. "

Other branches of F, they say, would have migrated east to India with
mtDNA haplogroups U2 and U7, while others migrating toward Central Asia
or the Caucasus would have later become haplogroup K with the M9
mutation, and then expanding widely, giving rise to many other
haplogroups. Eventually those with M173 would migrate westward into
Europe, still during the Upper Paleolithic.

And a little while later, still before the LGM, M170 (I) arose and
expanded out of the haplogroup F population that was in Southeastern
Europe. We don't really know how far west it got, though I'm sure
people on the list have some good theories.

So, what's described in this paper would agree in some measure with
Ellen's point here, and in her other posting where she questions the
continuity between ancient and modern populations.

If others know of some way in which this paper's theories have been
discredited, I'm sure they will speak up.

Bonnie Schrack

This thread: