--- "fournet.arnaud" <
fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
> I read this article :
> it states that because Etruscan **real** remnants
> cannot be used,
****GK: I suspect that things are not quite that
simple, and that some of this earlier research is
quite adequate. It has been questioned in toto because
of some (not because of total) contamination. This is
akin to the issue of the Dereivka horse head. Some
portions were dated to the IVth mill. BCE, others to
the Irst mill. BCE The latter were assumed (correctly)
to have been contaminated by current handlers. But
this did not apply to the earlier date. And so the
quick rejection of this horsehead's relevance was
itself rejected. I expect the same thing will now
happen in the Etruscan case.****
they used genes from nowadays
> inhabitants of Murlo instead,
> assuming that Murlo's inhabitants might share as
> **much** as possible with **true** Etruscans.
> Quite obviously this assumption is wrong.
****GK: There is obviously nothing wrong with this
assumption.****
> The map resulting from their work looks like a map
> of Greek-speaking Jews in the Roman Empire circa the
> year 300 AD.
> It has nothing to do with Etruscans.
****GK: Now THAT is an obviously wrong assumption.****
I agree with Patrick that the NY Times article has
rendered the position of Etruscan autochtonists
questionable. No "full stops" here for scientists.
Sorry. I also agree with Marius' comments about
Herodotus et al.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs