Archaeologica.org

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html

The team found that almost 60% of the mitochondrial DNA in cows in the central Tuscan region of the country - where the Etruscan civilisation is thought to have arisen - was the same as that in cows from Anatolia and the Middle East. There was little or no genetic convergence between cows from the north and south of Italy and those from Turkey and the Middle East, the researchers say.

Pellecchia notes that no archaeological or genetic traces of Etruscan culture have been found elsewhere between Turkey and Italy. This, combined with the Etruscans' famed nautical prowess leads Pellecchia to conclude that the Etruscans and their cattle arrived in Italy by sea, and not by land.

Poor Herodotus. What must an author do to get respect? Especially after he's dead. It seems as time goes on, Herodotus is being vindicated in much of his "histories". I am rooting for him.

Dying usually helps.

It seems as time goes on, Herodotus is being vindicated in much of his "histories". I am rooting for him.

hmmm I don't think that any of the crap he said about Babylonia is ever going to be proved true

the outer city wall was "fifty royal cubits wide and two hundred high" (Herodotus, Book I, para 179)

its length was "a circuit of some fifty-six miles" (Herodotus, Book I, para 178)

actually the distance was 12 miles

"There is a fortress in the middle of each half of the city: in one the royal palace surrounded by a wall of great strength, in the other, the temple of Bel, the Babylonian Zeus." (Herodotus, Book I, para 181)

both were located in the eastern portion of the city

and this is before he starts overexaggerating the yield of the fields and the coustoms of the people themselves

Herodotus wrote in a narrative style which is typical of the period, I suppose. However, where Homer embellished and fictionalized his epics, Herodotus never quite went that far but related history from a certain point of view, as if an eyewitness. It was a narrative device rather than a straight recapitulation of facts as you see in a modern text book. He also related the stories and tales he heard, such as griffins and dragons and often commented that he did not know if the stories were true of not. But it is useful to give the reader an insight into the minds and beliefs of the people of ancient greece and environs. He probably got a few things wrong. For example, his stories of the kings of Lydia are out of order according to orthodox consensus. But otherwise I find his work a true treasure.

"Father of Lies" He was called this by a fellow historian who seemed to resent Herodotus' Greek bias in his narratives.