Study of Colombus' DNA

[Roma_Victrix]

DNA can't determine where someone grew up, as you correctly point out, but they will certainly be able to tell what general regional population each of Columbus' segments of DNA came from. For example, Western Iberia or Northern Italy. It's possible that those segments won't all be from the same regional population, but they will be able to tell (by the segment length) which came from more recent vs more distant ancestors. If they look, they will be able to roughly determine family relationships between Columbus and anyone living today or in the past (whose DNA is available). They should definitely be able to detect Jewish ancestry as long as his most recent Jewish ancestor was not further than six or seven generations back. Further back than that, it's luck of the draw if any particular segment is present. The exception would be if he has Jewish ancestry along a direct maternal or paternal lineage which can be detectable as far back as there have been Jews. Columbus lived in a time frame from which there are massive databases of of relevant IBD segments, because they are still recognizable in people alive today. That makes the task much easier.

Besides his ethnic/regional ancestry, there could be other interesting discoveries, since we now know the polymorphisms associated with a lot of traits.

All very well and good, but I thought it was just common sense that he was Northern Italian and from Genoa, per academic consensus and late medieval historiography? He only came to Spain and Portugal seeking a monarch who would care to fund his Atlantic voyage and crackpot theory about reaching East Asia quickly due to the size of the world being miscalculated (when in reality the ancient Greeks like Eratosthenes were remarkably accurate in determining the circumference of our planet).

[sumskilz]

I think old mate's pointing out that a serious scientific methodology is being applied in the name of a p***ing contest. Nothing to stop intelligent individuals (or even me) from using the studies for more worthwhile ends but this looks like an Iberian nationalist bit of fluff.

Yeah, the motivation behind the funding doesn’t really matter as long as the investigation is carried out with integrity and the raw data is made available to other researchers after publication.

All very well and good, but I thought it was just common sense that he was Northern Italian and from Genoa, per academic consensus and late medieval historiography? He only came to Spain and Portugal seeking a monarch who would care to fund his Atlantic voyage and crackpot theory about reaching East Asia quickly due to the size of the world being miscalculated (when in reality the ancient Greeks like Eratosthenes were remarkably accurate in determining the circumference of our planet).

Testing what is believed to be true with a novel methodology that produces rather unambiguous results is just good science. Isotope analysis should be done as well in order to test where he grew up independent of his ancestry. My expectation in this case is that the results will solidify and add depth to the consensus view rather than falsify it.

That said, DNA evidence has on several occasions falsified what had become near consensus views or illuminated entirely unexpected results. Although, in most cases this has been regarding prehistoric, early historic, or long-term demographic trends. My views on the importance of reexamining what we think we know are somewhat influenced by the fact that one of my main archaeological mentors rose to prominence by falsifying something that had been consensus among both archaeologists and historians. In his case, it didn't even require the application of a new methodology. He simply reexamined the existing data and noticed something that literally hundreds of scholars had missed, presumably because they didn't have any reason to doubt the consensus.

[antaeus]

Yeah, the motivation behind the funding doesn’t really matter as long as the investigation is carried out with integrity and the raw data is made available to other researchers after publication.

I guess I was hinting that I feel it is almost pointless to do assessments of the DNA of historically known individuals without a clear understanding the non-scientific consequences that the knowledge could present us with. Certainly it provides interesting information, and perhaps we might discover a few descendants or some interesting little general knowledge tidbits or some juicy 15th century gossip.

But really, that's where it ends for me. The potential for tantalising gossip, and for non-scientific chest beating.

As an individual sample it can offer interesting insights, but as a single sample of a known individual, those insights are difficult to extrapolate into broader reflections on that society that haven't already been offered by our existing knowledge of that person and their mercenary story.

Don't get me wrong tho. I love a good analysis of long dead bodies - the insights on offer are priceless. The more distant in time and anonymous the body, the more interesting the insight, and the less my concerns here matter.




As a footnote: it was one of those mail order DNA tests that discovered my grandfather wasn't my grandfather. Thankfully he had already passed. Because that wouldn't have been a fun conversation. Therein lies the metaphor tho. That it's fine for us to say "it's just science and has no inherent consequences" but tell that to the wild mob burning down a building waving the flag of a newly claimed long dead folk hero, or in my case, tell that to my grandfather as he cuts my grandmother's head out of every family photo.

[Gromovnik]

Who knew this thread would make me google "naughty grandmas"... I regret nothing.