GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119769013
From: (Raymond Whritenour)
Subject: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 02:56:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: ellen Levy <email@example.com>'s message of Sat, 25 Jun2005 22:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
"Here is the point: Do you consider any of these groups "non-indigenous"
at this point in time? They all moved into the region from somewhere
else initially. They all helped form the earliest cultures of Ireland."
"WHAT is the point? Of course they're all "indigenous," "at this point
in time." All the Anglo-Irish are now "indigenous" to Ireland. The
question to be answered is: Which group or groups are "aboriginal"?
Every time a new wave of people enters a region with an existing
population, that existing population is the "indigenous"
population--whether or not that existing population is "aboriginal."
Certainly, some of the cultural manifestations you outline are not
indicative of human migrations, but of migrating technologies.
Therefore, many of the earliest distinctive "cultures" may have arisen
among the aboriginal people, themselves, without any influx of
When posing a question about DNA, in relation to a given era in a
region's history or prehistory, I suppose it would be best to use
phrases like "the pre-Celtic indigenous population" or "the pre-Beaker
people indigenous population." The term, "aboriginal," should be
reserved only for those we KNOW are the very first inhabitants and their
Of course, "the pre-Celtic indigenous population" of Ireland will show a
wider genetic diversity than "the aboriginal population" of Ireland, if
it is possible to sort this all out, at this late date.
|[DNA] "Indigenous, etc." by (Raymond Whritenour)|