I am talking about the paper, everything I write is in relation to Anatolia?
Also, I keep seeing this comment as some sort of jack-of-all-trade rebuttal in relation to Herodotus, but the Etruscan paper did not prove him wrong necessarily, let me explain.
The Etruscan paper provided the proof that Etruscans carried Iron-Age Steppe R1b-P312 lineages and had significant Steppe autosomal input but did very little to explain why the Etruscan language is not part of the (Italo-Celtic?) IE/CW grouping that those lineages spread in other parts of their expansion.
As a result, If Etruscan is not an IE/CW language but rather has its origin in the neolithic farmer civ substratum that predated that expansion/invasion, then Herodotus wasn't really wrong, it's just the dating details that got lost in the mix. You have to give the historian some credit, Etruscans were too far detached to the Greek world at the time to get all the details right.
Please. What he said never made any sense, given that he stated they came from Lydia in Anatolia. Dionysius of Halicarnassus certainly didn't believe it, and held that the Etruscans were autochthonous, as they were. Now you're going to pretend that being in part descended from Neolithic farmers, which of course Herodotus somehow knew, made them NOT autochthonous? After 4,000 years? And, you're going to pretend Herodotus was somehow prescient and knew all about it?
You're making yourself absurd.
I'd have more respect for your posts if you'd just admit what is obvious to everyone: he was wrong, and you were wrong in relying on him.
Not that I'm singling him out from among the ancient writers.
When are some people going to get it in their heads that these writers were not historians in the modern sense, and certainly not geneticists or even "ethnographers", which is probably just above the level of "Women's Studies". Most of them were paid hacks writing political tracts, even if they were beautifully written political tracts.
I mean, do you take the Aeneid seriously too? Or the writing of the "historians" for the Kings of France that they were descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalen? I mean, who is going to be brave enough to rebel against the descendants of Jesus Christ himself? As for Rome, well, hey, they weren't the descendants of some mangy shepherds in some huts on hills above the mosquito infested swamp land; they were descended from the aristocracy of Troy.
I think some posters on anthrofora would be the better for some university level courses on the nature of "historical" writing in certain eras; what it was and what it was not.
Now, MOVE ON, and I mean it.
It's not the full moon is it? This is like trying to herd cats.