When DNA Second-Guesses History . . . and Is Wrong
In a new article in the European Journal of Human Genetics (17/5:693), the enigmatic Etruscans of antiquity are again the subject of a DNA investigation. This time, the study, called "The Etruscan timeline: A Recent Anatolian Connection," uses mitochondrial DNA to probe the ultimate origins of the people, who appeared on the stage of history in about the eighth century BCE. We know this time frame is fairly accurate because the Romans started their calendar in 753 BCE with the founding of Rome and dated all records A.U.C. (Ab Urbe Condita, "From the Founding of Rome"). Roman historians beginning with Ennius and Livy also recount how early Rome was conquered by the Etruscans and made subject to Etruscan kings for the first few centuries of its existence.
That is why it is strange that the present article estimates "an [sic] historical time frame for the for the arrival of Anatolian lineages to Tuscany ranging from 1.1=/-0.1 to 2.3+/-0.4 kya B.P." Based, then, on the retrospective coalescence of DNA, this calculates the Etruscans' migration from an original homeland in Anatolia (modern Turkey) to as late as 1200 CE and as early as 390 BCE. What is going on? The Etruscans were clearly seated in Italy 450 years before 390 BCE, and by 1200 CE, they were long since gone as an entity. In fact, by the time of the emperor Claudius, who wrote a lost history of them around 1 CE, the Etruscans were already considered historical oddities and their language dead.
So are geneticists trying to rewrite history? I think it is a case of a fundamental fallacy in their work. Calculation of a time to coalescence is obviously limited by the validity and reliability of the sample, but it is also very often illusory. To take the example of Native Americans, just because geneticists arrive at a time to coalescence of 10,000 years before present, doesn't mean the place of coalescence has to be in Mongolia/Siberia, where they derive all Native Americans. It could just as well be in the Americas. DNA doesn't necessarily tell us anything about geography. But it is often pressed into service to prop up a theory about human migrations. Let us remember, though, that such constructs are just constructs, so DNA cannot be evidence, only confirmation of someone's historical or racial construct.
If one wishes to speak about evidence in a strict sense, however, it is interesting that the researchers (Francesca Brisighelli et al.) found, by mtDNA sequencing, a "novel autochthomous Tuscan brand of haplogroup U7." This can mean that the same U7 turning up elsewhere may be a sign of Etruscan movements.
888-806-2588
Comments
Anonymous commented on 18-Jun-2011 02:08 PM
My mother's family has roots from one of the very early Grandmother's of Acadia (Nova Scotia) and my father's parents were born in Sweden. I had my DNA done and my autosomal DNA gives me a 98.6 % with 1.86 error ratio of being from the Orkney Islands..
I am blown away by this finding as I never heard of Orkney Islands until this week and my mother's family is theoretically French.. I can see my father's family originating from the islands as he is a Swede.. I am very interested in any discussion on this
finding.. Thank you
Frazer Campbell commented on 09-Aug-2011 08:05 AM
Hi re the entry above about Nova Scotia and Orkney. It might be that your Orcadian roots are a result of contact with the Hudson Bay Company. Around 75% of Hudson Bay employees were from Orkney, quite a few married Cree women . I am busy with a project
until October 2011 but if you want help to explore this further let me know and I'll try my best. Kind regards Frazer Campbell
Keith Gilbert commented on 24-Mar-2012 04:55 PM
I am 72 years old, my mother was a Mouton. At age 8 my maternal grandmother told me we were Jews...ours was the most un religious family you can imatine.
Keith Gilbert commented on 28-Apr-2012 06:44 PM
I am a descendant of the Mouton line...am very interested in how the Jewish migration to Nova Scotia (Acadia) happened.