GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119722759
From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Haplogroup F* & what's indigenous
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
This would be really intriguing, wouldn't it? If some
of the earliest inhabitants of Britain (be they
chambered cairn builders or Bronze Age Beaker folk or
some other group) ended up being something completely
different than expected - something like haplogroup K
or F*! Could be a mixture of unexpected haplogroups,
with some more antipicated groups thrown in as well.
I think the debate over "indigenous" is probably
unncessary hair-splitting, but I wanted to address
something said about "indigeous" relating to a group
being in a region far longer than another. Taking
Peter's example, are the Clyde chambered cairn
builders "indigenous" and the Beaker folk "newcomers?"
Or perhaps someone there before the cairn builders?
I don't think so - not by the year 2005, at least,
though thoughts on this may have been different
thousands of years ago, when these migrations were
actually taking place. And to the next immigrant
group after the Beaker folk, BOTH the cairn builders
and Beaker folk were "indigenous" to the region.
Nor can someone assume that just because their
ancestors came from a particular area in Britain, they
are therefore directly descended from the ancient
tribes of that area, or the even earlier
archaeologically-defined cultures of that area (ie,
Beaker folk, cairn builders, etc.)
I urge people to read to the Etruscan DNA study and
Ancient Basque studies to get a sense of the genetic
discontinuity that occurs over time between ancient
and modern populations. I also posted previously
about a MtDNA study on remains from Israel from 5000
BC where the researchers were unable to find exact
matches with any contemporary individuals. They found
distant matches with someone in China, Yemen and
Switzerland. Indeed, some very diverse individuals
from very different regions of the world.