Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1159041397

From: "grandcross" <>
Subject: [DNA] Fw: E3b and redheads
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:56:43 -0500

Steven writes:

> Cruciani has said that E3b1a2 = a Balkan origin. This is now, with his
> latest paper, approaching proof.
> Various archaeologists (Hoddinott, Webber) have said that the early
> historical inhabitants of the
> Balkans were the Thracians (7th millenium B.C. to about 350 A.D.).
> Therefore, many if not most of the E3b1a2 inhabitants of the Balkans were
> Thracians, as I have previously defined this group of people. I see no
> conflict in this observation.
> Herodotus (who was Greek of course) said Thracian warriors were large,
> powerfully built men, had red or blonde hair, grey or blue eyes, "delicate
> white" skin and a tendency to "put on flesh." That is the description to
> which I referred. How accurate that description was; who knows?
> I have stated that some of the redheads in Britain are possibly
> descendants
> of Thracian soldiers and have tested as E3b1a2. Not all of the redheads
> are
> Viking, and not all of the Thracians were redheads.

Sounds logical to me. But even if Herodotus was color blind or he didn't
encounter a statistically significant number of Thracians to make a
meaningful observation of their hair color, or he had some ulterior motive
to lie, what I really don't understand is the view, "... It doesn't seem
likely all or even most of [Thracians] were [E3b]...." Why? Because there
aren't that many around today, we are told. As if it's settled the
percentage of E3b in the region today reflects that of two or three thousand
years ago. Or that the ratio among the different haplogroups is identical
now to what it was then without regard to large movements of people in the
interim, or invasion, war, famine, and episotic disaster of every sort.
(and, yes, I know these things tend to affect all groups alike - they can
still have a disproportionate impact, and they did in ancient times,
particularly in densely populated areas)

Nobody can say for sure whether the Thracians were composed primarily of one
or more than one haplogroup or, as is entirely possible, they were a mixture
of genetic signatures across a spectrum of different haplogroups. However, I
question the wisdom of relying so much on the present, modern day,
distribution and frequency of haplogroups to the extent that any plausible
departure from that matrix is rendered "unlikely".

This thread: