Talk:Etruscan civilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please look at the map. Rome was founded by the "Ramnes, Luceres, and Tites". Ramnes = Romans. Luceres = Ligurians (nearby). And Tites seems to be cognate with Celto-Germanic *Tuatha, *Theod, *Diot meaning tribes, cf. Deut-schland, Pennsylvania DUT-CH. CURIAE is cognate with GREEK *KURIOUS = Lord. And could *LAUTNI = Freedman in Etruscan be the root of LATIN? That is, could the Latins who overthrew Etruscan overlordship have been FREEDMEN who rebelled against their former masters? That *Etera = (foreign) bondsmen seems strange... doesn't it resemble ETRUscan?

Also, could *LUCAIR meaning ruler really come from *RUCAIR, cognate with IE *Rex? L <-> R in many tongues. Furthermore, could LICTOR come from Etruscan LUCAIR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:51, 25 December 2006.

I will just give a brief answer to this one. Basically the connections you make here are unsubstantiated and have no evidence; in short, they are a fantasy, like the many Atlantis fantasies. Anyone can fantasize on anything. You can really get quite wrapped up in your fantasies and think you have discovered new worlds and vistas. I did it when I was young and probably so did most others. To be honest with you, that is why you go to graduate school and train with professionals. They teach (or should teach) you not to do that, not that they are trying to quell original research or extinguish inspiration, but if any assertions have any hope of being true, they need evidence of some sort. The study of ancient history is a kind of myth-making process itself. The most remarkable characters run around its stage. That is the "historicity problem." Historicity is a constant battle with the rampant imagination in which we seem to delight.Dave 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, as it stands the paragraph on origins of the Etruscan civilization is poorly written. "Lost in prehistory" is a pretty strong term for a place that consistent archaeological layers dating back to about 1700BC (the Terramare culture- named by archaeologists, no one knows what they called themselves) which itself is clearly an offshoot of the famous Hallstatt culture. The transitional phases along the way from Terramare to Etruscan do not in any way imply that different people suddenly arrived in the area, but instead, that new technologies came in and swept over them, transforming the way of life of the original people. So, I'd say that most prehistorians agree that the Etruscans are descendants of the Hallstatt cultures north of the Alps who were expanding southward throughout the Neolithic, but whose hold on Italy was tenuous until bronze working came in. That hardly makes the Etruscan past "lost". Some historian somewhere said that because they didn't know their prehistory, but the notion that the Etruscans have nothing known of them until 850BCE is an error. Many scholars see regional similarities for that period (1700BCD to 850BCD and it's a fascinating story. The Etruscans, unlike the Hallstatt culture, had a great piece of seaside landscape, which enabled them to adopt new technologies and ideas from both the seafaring peoples (and there were many) and their relatives to the North. Judging from what is known about mythic motifs and pottery, they were never completely out of touch with their northern ancestors.--LeValley 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I should have said that I was using the Hallstatt term to refer to the region where the Hallstatt culture is, and to the preceding cultures, each of which have been given their own names in a somewhat confusing (and controversial) tendency within archaeology to try and label layers and denote major cultural changes - usually in pottery styles and techology, rarely with reference to how people looked or even acted. The Hallstatt region was not well populated until the Neolithic, which is very interesting. It did have a very active fishing/bird netting culture from about 28,000 onward, but it emptied out during really cold times, so that most sites are abandoned for hundreds or thousands of years - that's always a good reason to name the newcomers something different. But more and more, it seems that many of the newcomers had some ancestral connection to places - they moved away in bad weather, but the same people often came back again - judging by mtDNA analysis, anyway. And, they often either brought new people with them, or new people followed them. It may be difficult to know, ever. But the Etruscans do have connections to Old Europe and there are several lines of evidence for this.LeValley 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ramnes (from Rasenna) were the Etruscans, Luceres (from "lucus"=forest) were the Latins and Tities were the Sabins (Titus, Titius, Tatius were sabin names). I think this is the Dumézil theory (Vocabulary of Indoeuropean Institutions), today widely accepted. Lele giannoni (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Aryan theories?[edit]

Glengordon01, you, as "an amateur in the field of comparative linguistics" you should not spread disinformation. Where are the pure-blood "aryan" theories? The first "Etruscans" or Tirsenoy of the coasts, that later occupied Vetulonia, Vulci etc. were Sardinian islanders of the XII-IX, and this is archaeologically proved. (Later Festus wrote: Reges soliti sunt esse Etruscorum qui Sardi appellantur.) About Biogenetics, read Dr. Tozzi's lines. About the Sardinian-Etruscan language, I think you still ignore that there are many books on the subject. Try reading French and Italian books written by Professor Jean Rene Jannot of Nantes, Prof. Massimo Pittau of Sassari, Prof. Giovanni Camporeale of Florence, Prof. Giovanni Lilliu of Cagliari, Prof. Giovanni Ugas etc. and the same writings belonging to the scholars of the UNESCO about the ancient myth of Atlantis, the Sardinians and the Etruscans. You say you are obsessed with ancient languages, why don't you study the Sardinian letters of Zricottu instead of writing useless and adverse criticism, especially your personal opinions? --Nicholas 19:49, January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem clear that Sardinians (sea people) joined the already existing peoples of the area called Etruscan, continuously landing and settling among (marrying too) from the 12th to the 9th centuries BCE. However, this still doesn't mean that they were the first or only people there (indeed I think most prehistorians are still very much caught up in trying to figure out the relationships - you'd need to go to the most recent genetic research to find out more clues. If the Sardinians brought their language into the area, and "Sardinized" whatever language was spoken by the Terramare people, that needs a citation. I'd really like to know which linguists have worked that out. I do have some of the genetic data in my house somewhere (Cavalli-Sforza) but don't have time to dig it out right now. Someone could though, it's in every university library.LeValley 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Who deleted his comments? it would be nice if we could see the context to which you replied so heatedly. (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the true theory and NOT the faux Nazi theory that was actualy trumped up and faked....the belief is that the Roman's may have come from the celtic regions originaly and not a "Pure race of Aryans. So I agree that the theory holds no water on this article.
It is believed that the Etruscans came from Asia Minor?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation? Sigh. Wow, some anonymous guy on Wikipedia with one name and no bio suddenly professes to be a specialist by decree. Gee, we're so impressed! >:P Care to cite anything tangible rather than being childishly accusatory, and against Wikipedia's albeit weakly enforced policies? Your self-aggrandizement is telling. What you're claiming flies against published work and logical reasoning. Let me explain further:

A) Your obsession with UNESCO: UNESCO can't solve all historical mysteries. The answer does not lie in one bloated organization, one individual, or one area of study. It's one thing to say that Sardinia is important to Etruscan pre-history (yes, I most definitely agree to that), but quite another to make absolute assertions of their origins based solely on genetics (which is just like all the other race-related theories of old, repackaged for a naive PC-sensitive generation as "genetics-based").

Your subtle misunderstandings become clear when you say things like "The first 'Etruscans' or Tirsenoy of the coasts, that later occupied Vetulonia, Vulci etc. were Sardinian islanders of the XII-IX, and this is archaeologically proved."

* 1. It's not Tirsenoy. It's Tyrsenoi as clearly attested in Classical Greek with "upsilon". Nice try but if you fail with such simple facts, it's hard to take you seriously.
* 2. No, this fact does not prove your claim; it merely "suggests" it (and only in a partial, non-absolutist manner). If you think otherwise, you fail in Logic 101.

You can only seek to prove from this that the first known evidence of Etruscans happen to be there but we have no possible guarantee that we've excavated everything we need to along the Mediterranean coastline as of 2007! Strange that you are unaware that archeology is a continuously evolving field, especially for someone who cloaks himself as a specialist on this topic.

Logically, only a percentage were from Sardinia but you purposely ignore all the irrefutable Etruscan texts that show that others were from Magna Graecia, Carthage and Greece. No big shocker if you have any grasp of the basics of ethnology. Afterall, I've never heard of a "pure ethnic group" outside of Nazi propaganda and the like. Have you?

You apparently failed to read the Etruscan inscriptions with names like Hipucrate (TLE 155; clearly Greek "Hippocrates"), Karθazie (TLE 724; "Carthaginian") and who can forget TLE 131, the sarcophagus of Laris Pulena who according to his own inscription is grandson of Laris Creice "Laris the Greek" (Laris Pulenas, Larces clan, Larθal papals, Velθurus nefts, prumts Pules Larisal Creices.)? What misinformation? Don't you have access to this simple, published information?

Do we need genetic studies to figure this all out? Nope, it's called 'logical thinking'.

Plus, need I have to also explain to you how there are also Etruscans of Italic origin too (whether it be Roman, Umbrian or Faliscan)? Also did you fail to read that a lot of pottery is fashioned along Greek styles and much of the mythology is clearly related to the Greek, including the legend of Troy? Why so many links to Greece if they all just came from Sardinia? Sorry bud, but Etruscan architecture isn't really "Sardinian-motivated" either and you know that. So all of the material culture shows us clearly that Etruscans were multi-ethnic and obviously cosmopolitan. If they were culturally cosmopolitan, it stands to reason that they were genetically so to an appreciable degree as well.

Yet despite all these readily accessible facts and most basic reasoning, you have the gull to insist on an absolutist theory cloaked as "science". From what you're saying so far, you're contradicting every known principle of mainstream linguistics and archaeology combined. You speak as though you're neither a linguist nor historian, nor archaeologist, so what are you then? It sure sounds like an aryan theory alright.

In order to continue on with your rot, you must presuppose a "pure race" (Etruscans as a single demic entity) coming from a single place (Sardinia). If you had said "Etruscans are from Sardinia as well as other places", you'd be on solid footing, although you'd merely then be stating the obvious!

B) Your odd hatred of "amateurs": An "amateur" is hardly a leper. Academic caste systems tend to be a way of masking one's own feelings of inadequacy with irrational politics and petty ad hominem.

There are plenty of amateurs (ie. people without PhDs in their field of interest) that despite this mirage of a handicap make valid contributions in their field. Amateurs can be as competent and as knowledgeable as their certificate-bejeweled counterparts, or even in some rare cases, more so.

A PhD is simply an individual's title and, aside from displaying one's financial capacity to amass tens of thousands of dollars in all for university enrollment, it does little to assure us of their diligence, their competence or their honesty. These qualities are rather to be witnessed in their character and in the work that they produce, and of course, no one needs a degree to produce solid work nor to be of noble character. In some ways, "amateur" is a badge of honour since it suggests that the person in question is honestly dedicated to an area of study beyond the drug of money and status.

I hardly think that you're not an amateur so I wouldn't protest too much on this one unless you can prove your notability in Etruscology, Mr. Nicholas X.

C) Your random bibliography: Yes, yes, it's all well and good that you've joined a book-of-the-month club. I can list a bunch of authors too but why does anyone care what we've read if we've never first thoroughly questioned what we've read and acquired an understanding of it?

I've read some of the people you list and I'm not as easily intoxicated by the mere smell of a printed page. Festus lived in the second century AD in case you weren't aware so in what way then can he offer us a trustable account of Etruscan origins an entire millenium after the fact? He can only ever be second-hand information once we've assessed the primary data. And Jean-René Jannot Religion in Ancient Etruria (2005) is one book in which I've found some ennerving errors. I'm not terribly satisfied with him. (PS: I'm finding that it pays to keep digi-notes and a personal linguistic database of Etruscan to nail contradictions that less organized non-techies might miss. It's amazing what a little PERL coding can do.)

--Glengordon01 09:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your poor listing of sources, perhaps it should also be mentioned the poor quality of "Doctor" Massimo Pittau's work while we're at it.

On his site, it's actually claimed the word sran is "vocabolo finora non documentato che però, sembrando corradicale di sar, sar, sra «dieci» (LEGL 94), probabilmente significa «decimo-a»". Total nonsense.

It means "image" as published already by Larissa Bonfante and proven by their usage in the published inscriptions found in TLE. I've also collected this information and organized them by etymon in my own personal database for quick on-the-fly look-up so that jackasses can't trump me (ah, thank god for PERL):

  • sren [TLE 399], śran-c [CPer A.xv] ( // śrenχve [LL 2.ii, 3.xiii, 4.ix, 4.x, 4.xvi, 9.xv], śrencve [LL 2.xii, 4.xii, 5.viii] (

CPer here stands for Cippus Perusinus (CIE 4538) and LL for Liber Linteus (TLE 1), of course. There is no way a competent Etruscologist cannot see that sran is *demonstrably* an inanimate noun because of A) the use of inanimate plural marker -χva ~ -va (attested elsewhere as in pulum-χva "stars") and B) the use of the nominal conjunctive -c instead of the phrasal conjunctive -m. In the locative case, it is declined as śrenχve (< *śrenχva-i). End of discussion.

Pittau is so unprofessional that he apparently overlooks the famous inscription on a mirror next to an image of Heracles suckling Hera's breast:

  • Eca sren tva iχ nac Hercle Unial clan θra sce
  • Literally: "This image shows thus when Heracles Uni's son breast suckled."
  • "This image thus shows the time when Heracles, Uni's (Hera's) son, suckled [her] breast."

Sorry, but Pittau's result, "This tenth shows...", isn't worth commenting further on. He's clearly not even trying to make sense. Why do people still get conned into buying this nonsense? --Glengordon01 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Logic needs premises, it doesn't operate in a void and the genetic evidence (which is quite intriguing) can't be ignored and must be included in the premises.

Personally, I think it ridiculous to claim that all these various European cultures springing up during the Neolithic (beginning 8500BP in Old Europe) and the pre-Neolithic cultures (starting in Ukraine and Russia circa 45,000BP and moving into France (but apparently avoiding the meandering river valleys of Old Europe) at 35,000 mixed it up, a lot. The genetic markers in question give valuable clues about major migrations and who was related to whom, but practically every local group studied so far shows increasingly mixed markers as time goes on. I've never understood the concept of "Aryans" very well, myself, there seem to be almost as many definitions of the term as there are writers about it - I don't know anyone in academia who would use it, except to describe the history of the term and the ways it has been invoked by various schools of thought or politics, for all manner of reasons.LeValley 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is getting pretty hard to follow, but basically I believe I'm agreeing with GlenG. By the times we know as Etruscan, there is plenty of Helladic/Hellenic influence (it's not my region of expertise, don't know the right adjective there). But let's leave both Atlantis and Aryans out of the article.LeValley 20:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Etruscan Society, Patriarchal or Egalitarian[edit]

Etruscan society was most likely egalitarian rather than patriarchal ,as someone entitled 'hector' keeps writing. By the sentence put before it in the article one can conclude they were more likely egalitarian. They used the title of both their mother and their father. Unlike patriarchal cultures were they did not recognise the mother's name. This is in addition to the depictions of women with writing on their mirrors and possessions, indicating that they were educated. And women were also depicted alongside men at equal statue on sarcopahgi ie: the smiling couple of cerveteri.

Firstly, sign your messages. Secondly, what u have just said does not justify to name their society 'egalitarian'. this word contradicts to what the paragraph says. read more carefully: Females could state that they were the daughter of a father [...] and the wife of a husband, Conversely, a man was never described as a husband of a woman. Clearly patriarchal society. --Hectorian 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The word "patriarchal" has become a pop term, encompassing many different ways of social organization. Matriliny and patriliny involve how names and goods are passed down. Matrilocal and patrilocality involve whose family home is used for the new famiy, as people weren't neolocal at that time. For something to be called a patriarchy, you need evidence that fathers were in charge of both sons and daughters, and that mothers had no say in who their offspring married, or where their property went when they died. Do you have that evidence? Please give me your citations, as I'd love to see them.LeValley 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The infectious meme of "classical patriarchy" has reared its ugly head. There's a danger that our own society is ironically too patriarchal in some respects to understand Etruscan society ;)

I perfectly agree with the "anonymous entity" above. Etruscans were more egalitarian than patriarchal and there should be nothing shocking about ancient cultures being this way. Consider for example that Etruscan burial inscriptions mention always both the father and the mother of the deceased. They don't have to, but they do, suggesting a bilateral kinship system like we have. (See Kinship terms for more goodies.)

Even Roman women had equal rights to men in terms of owning property, divorce and marriage... and that's nothing new because the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi also allowed women to divorce and covered the act of rape in a surprisingly so-called "modern" way by sympathizing with the female victim. There's a good chance that Minoans were also egalitarian like the Etruscans. Plus, there should be no question that Egyptians demonstrated non-patriarchal attitudes too when, for example, Hatshepsut came into power as a female pharaoh. She wasn't the only Egyptian female ruler either. Not all ancient cultures were as patriarchal as we tend to stereotype.

Now perhaps, we are too obsessed with the absolute label "patriarchal" and not obsessed enough with the details that may show a little masala of attitudes going on at once, as in any culture. So when we talk about men not being described as "husband of so-and-so", only in that context might we say that Etruscans kept "patriarchal" attitudes, perhaps from a past where this was more pervasive. It seems like a tiny thing to justify the patriarchy label, though. It would be like saying, "Because we may tend to use 'he' to refer to a person of unknown gender, we are a completely patriarchal society." Hmm. I dunno, maybe I'm ranting. Somebody else wanna add their two cents? --Glengordon01 05:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with Glengordon. These absolutist labels are meaningless without a thorough exploration of the myriad ways gender has played into power systems. Did the Etruscans permit women to own property? Could women have religious rites without male interference? Were there things only women knew that were essential to the culture? The reason that women's names included patroyms is probably because they were patrilocal (the woman went from her father's house to her husband's father's house or husband's house). That, only, does not make a society patriarchal, it's just a convenience nearly all societies (until very recently) used to keep households in order. It seems likely, as is found in most patrilocal societies, that the land passed down on the father's side. But in many societies that were patrilocal, ambilineal relations governed other aspects of life (many other forms of property besides land) and in many, women were free to separate themselves from their husbands and go back to their father's (or brother's houses), if they did not enjoy enough power or esteem in their husband's house. In many Hellenic communities, they took their children with them, hence the continual problem of some men being unable to find an heir and so many women seeming to be raising fatherless sons (until the time came to send the boy back, properly indoctrinated in his mother's household, to claim his father's property - in which case, the mother and her family stood to gain a great deal). That's *not* a patriarchy. It's something else. The names proposed for these various arrangements are still fluid in anthropology, and everyone who has studied these arrangements knows that most anthropologists have been surprised to learn how fluid and gender-ambiguous many social relationships really were. It wasn't all about Men Rule or Woman Rule. Much more complex. LeValley 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Etruscan Book[edit]

Shouldn't this book be refrenced somewhere? It seems pretty important, and directly relates to them. 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's described at Etruscan_language. --Wetman 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good hint. Btw, First Serbian "state" in 7th century was called RAŠKA. It is very close to how they've call themselves - Rasna. The capitol of that little state before they've joined with other provinces Duclea, Triballia, Pagania, Bosnia was RAS. There are some nations, for example Hungarians who were calling us RASI no matter where we live, even in Bulgaria and Romania. If Etruscans originates from Central Europe, well there we have Lusatian Sorbs whose symbol is oak. Oak in Old-Slavic is called RAST or in Serbian today: Hrast. Oaks are usually strong and old trees, definitely some part of old Slavic cults. Btw, Croats and Serbs are described as two nations who migrated south from central europe, and don't know why but many connects us with Scythians and Sarmatians but it is 7th century in this era not BC. So, just hypotetical if this book was found in Bulgaria and Bulgarians are actually Volgarians maybe these "Sea people" lived sometimes on the Black sea and then migrated to Adriatic sea, from there even went to Italy. Btw, hat which has that figure reminds me on figures from Vinca's culture (Carphatian Mountains, Romania and present day Serbia). Also, figures with chariots are found even in Serbia, for example this one:

Also, that hat reminds me a lot on the one which Scythians had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More work, men[edit]

I'm thunderstruck at all the excellent responses to this article, which I put on the right track by giving it its current organization and leading us into the scholarship. But, you know what? At the time I didn't understand notes so I didn't put any in. But, there are some things in this discussion page that ought to be in notes! Not only that but I notice there are some unsourced theories that could use notes. So, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm putting in a blank notes section. If you gentlemen and clearly scholars would fill some in I would appreciate that personally and also I think it would make the article better and more Wikipedic. Some of those Etruscan quotes would go great in a note, or whatever. Thank you so much and I am gratified to see such general recognition of Etruscan cultural importance. What we need is to find a copy of the Iliad translated into Etruscan. PS. I'm going to throw in a few requests for sources but don't get upset. They look like great theories. I would just like to know where they come from if possible.Dave 02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Later. Oh excuse me, there are two notes. More, please.Dave 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave, the article shows many mistakes, above all "personal opinions" given by pseudo-linguists with no experience in archaeology and not supported by sources. Recent theories say that the first Etruscans of the coasts were Sardinian islanders. You should read the books written by Dr. Sergio Frau. His discoveries are still studied by archaeologists and researchers of the UNESCO. They are reliable sources. --Nicholas 12:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that there continues to be linguistic errors in the article but "pseudo-linguist" is a matter of degrees when it comes to Etruscan studies. They're all pseudo-linguists. Massimo Pallottino, Larissa Bonfante, Jean-René Jannot and Nancy DeGrummond all have published numerous comments or essays concerning the Etruscan language, and all have contradicted each other, all in ignorance of a coherent grammatical structure. I mean, a "real" structure; the kind linguists understand. But then, are they specialized in linguistics? No. Have most 'experts' in Etruscology ever heard of vowel typology, markedness, ditransitive verbs or structural linguistics? Judging by their books, I'd say nope. Instead, I see a lot of persistent folk etymologies.

Speaking of modern folktales and "pseudo-linguists", I especially like the one about crapśti found in the Liber Linteus being an Umbrian god named Grabuvie even though no one has yet explained how you can validly tease that name out of crapśti by any phonetic process known to humankind. How does a "v" turn into "pś"? No point asking, really; it's bunk. When the word is examined within its *proper* context within the Liber Linteus wrappings, it looks to be simply an inessive noun in -ti by way, at least, of the modest grammatical model on which non-linguistic-trained Etruscologists seem at all to agree.

At any rate, someone can change "zilath" or "zilach" on the page which was already translated by Pallottino (The Etruscans, 1975) as "praetor" which, therefore, is not "the leader of the people (methlum)", is it? I've noted that Nancy DeGrummond (2006) accepts this as well. Please everyone, look up praetor to understand what it does. It's not a "leader of the people" per se unless you use the phrase very loosely. I suppose a teacher or an engineer is a leader of the people too :P There are different types of praetor just as it is believed, based on the above inscriptions I mentioned earlier, that there are different kinds of zilath. So the current article's statement is plain wrong and contradicts attested inscriptions.

In fact there are more grammatical contradictions concerning zilath and many other words but I'll save it for a book perhaps <:P --Glengordon01 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Rasna and similar things should redirect to this. -- 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a hypothesis about the origin/meaning of Rasna, as it pertains to Etruscans. The Etruscans were known to be a civilization who carved and sculpted things, even being known for hewing their tombs in rock. From a linguistic perspective then, my hypothesis is the term Rasna is similar to two Gaelic terms. Ra being similar to Righ (or King), and Sna being similar to Snaigh (or "carve, sculpt, hew"). If this were the case, it would be logical to assume the title Rasna meant something like "kings of (leaders of, best of) carving/sculpting/hewing." In addition, similar Gaelic words(among them: "snog" (lovely, attractive), "snas" (accomplishment, elegance, finesse), "snuadh" (hue, complexion, appearance, aspect)) all can be seen to fit nicely as descriptors of the Etruscan people. I chose Gaelic as a possible descriptor language for several reasons, two of which include: 1) The Gaelic people were known to travel. 2) The Gaelic language has changed relatively little over time. I am using the Gaelic dictionary "Essential Gaelic Dictionary" (Authored by Boyd Robertson and Ian MacDonald) as my reference for the Gaelic spellings and meanings cited above. ----ladyofthelands, 20 OCT 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyofthelands (talkcontribs) 09:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed statements[edit]

I've removed the following statement from the article: "Today, the Etruscan aura lingers in the plowed fields of Tuscany, especially in the late afternoon when the sunlight accentuates the amber furrows." If anyone can state exactly what encyclopedic information this statement is meant to convey, then it should be reworded and inserted back into the article. Robotman1974 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

it's obvious : "Today, the Etruscan aura lingers in the plowed fields of Tuscany, especially in the late afternoon when the sunlight accentuates the amber furrows." is a badly writtern way of saying "popular location for British ex-pats with property values increasing." 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following statement from the article/Architecture: ", which perhaps did not originate with the Etruscans, but were channeled by them into Roman civilization" There is no source given thus this is pure theory and POV.

Archived talk[edit]

I've archived some of the previous discussion for this page at Talk:Etruscan civilization/Archive 1. If any of that discussion is still ongoing, please copy the relevant sections back here. Robotman1974 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Originality of Etruscans[edit]

These people are originally from ancient India from Vedic time, who moved towards norther hemisphere of earth i.e. around Europe. In fact there is great influence of vedic culture on Etruscan and then their descendants like Greek, Romans etc. Please visit below links.

Most experts would say that after the Neolithic was well-established in Old Europe, people moved from there to India (at around the time of the Vedas) as well as southward, onto the Mediterranean peninsulas and Islands. Getting real chronologies together, with all the disparate lines of evidence, is quite a task - but you'd need to do that to prove your statement.--LeValley 20:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Épigraphie étrusco-italique[edit]

Under External Links, you have:

Web bibliography of Etruscan-related sites (in Italian)

It's actually in French 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Etruscan mummies"[edit]

Am I mistaken to think that the following, added by AbUser:, is simply based on third-hand rumor of the Liber Linteus that was used, in Egypt, to provide linen for mummy wrappings and was rediscovered in Zagreb? Is the rest of this just an improv? (Wetman 09:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Recently, there have been quite a few discoveries of Etruscan mummies, ironically all in Souther Italy. It is guessed that this is a result of the large population of nomadic preists and especially due to their great "Festitius de deas Dianae" of "Festival of the Goddes Diana", in which many Etruscans traveled to the South Eastern coast of Italy.

A closer look shows that neither edit was in good faith. Deleted and the IP warned. --Wetman 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Inscrutable passage[edit]

In my second pass I found this inscrutable passage tucked in there without any relevance that I can see to what was being said, so I have removed it to here. I have read this carefully and I honestly can say that I am no more enlightened than when I first read it. It says nothing. However I am willing to admit the author may have intended to say something and knew what he meant to say. It did not get through, author. I would guess that the paragraph uses too few words for the meaning or else the wrong words. I would say, if after reading my second pass you still think it has relevance as some sort of caveat, rewrite it addressing the clarity issue, study the logic of the article, and put it in, this time in the most relevant place. The passage:

"While this study gives an insight into the genetic composition of the Etruscans, it cannot resolve the linguistic controversy: An invasion of an elite imposing itself over autochthonous subjects often leads to linguistic changes as part of cultural hegemony without leaving genetic traces."Dave 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stubs to follow[edit]

There is so much to be said of interest to the public concerning the Etruscans that an article like this can only be a bare introduction. And, at this moment it is up to 39 KB. There is only one answer, cell mitosis. So, I plan to create a bunch of stubs of the formula Etruscan X, where X is history, magistracies, and what not. That will give us the opportunity to add Etruscan art, which everyone is dying to do, as you can tell from the commons. If you have anything to say, say it, as I plan to do it right away.Dave 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Problematic statement[edit]

I removed this statement from the intro: "numerous artifacts of Etruscan culture survived the Roman conquest. For example, according to doctrinal studies, the ancient roots of Roman Law derive directly from the Etruscan religion. [ref] J. Szmodis, The Reality of the Law: From the Etruscan Religion to the Postmodern Theories of Law; (Kairosz, Budapest), 2005.[1]. [end ref]"

The main problem is, this is a book in Hungarian and is not available in Engish. The site given as reference is mainly in Hungarian but it does contain a brief abstract in English. Unless the reader knows Hungarian, he/she cannot verify anything from the book and the abstract is little help.

I understand what the author is trying to do. However, examples are't necessary at that location, in the intro. The whole article is about "artifacts" of the Etruscan civilization. I notice also that the author has given the same reference under Etruscan mythology. As this is an English Wikipedia it needs English references, not that the original has to be in English, but translations should be available. Otherwise, you could write a whole article and have nothing but references in, say, Chinese, Russian or Arabic script. I am sure plenty or work has been done on most topics in countries speaking those languages.Dave 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Encarta link[edit]

The Encarta link was in there before and I took it out but now I see there is some demand for it I need to explain my reasoning. You can't just go to the link and read about Etruscans. It is a commercial site and sells Encarta. First you subscribe and then you can read the article. I had Encarta once myself so I know how it works. If you have Encarta you can access the online articles from it. I lost mine, not because I gave it up, but my daughter wrote on the disk. In order to get it back I have to buy it. I don't believe commercial sites ought to be in Wikipedia. The links here ought to be free of charge. We aren't selling articles. There are exceptions for exceptional material not available elsewhere (I think) but Encarta is not one of those. When I first looked at this article it just about had only links that were trying to sell you something. Please, Wikipedia is not for selling Encarta. Thanks.Dave 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence from DNA is now bring to light that the Etruscans may have come from Turkey[edit]

News from yesterdays genetic fraternity appears to have solve the mystrey surrounding the origins of the etruscan civilization. DNA sample taken from people in Tuscii Region, living there for three generation or more, and those from Southern Turkey, suggest they come from the same gene pool. The ramifaction is that the Etruscans where originally from Anatolia (Lydia), now modern day Southern Turkey.

This, also, lends credence to the fact that cattle found in Tuscii is related to species found only in turkey, reported in SCIENTIFIC AMERICA and elsewhere.

Laupw 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming the Tuscii people tested are descendants of the Etruscans. Three generations doesn't seem like much in the big picture. Are people living in Rome descendants of those who lived there 2000 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This connects up interestingly with Woudhuizen's theory of Luvian ancestry. He essentially posits that the Etruscans came from northern Turkey (Mysia) after first being pushed out of southern Turkey (Lydia) by the Cimmerians.
To the unsigned comment, while there is obviously not a perfect correspondence, the connection between ancient Rome and modern Rome is not completely zero--and it's much higher in smaller villages. While there are both mass migrations and individual settlers throughout history, there are also a good number of people who stay put in the land of their fathers, and genetic evidence (especially mitochrondial and sex-chromosome DNA) can help distinguish these cases. -- 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be an old discussion, but I would like to agree with the above editor. It is very difficult to correctly trace a gene pool in a large cosmopolitan city such as Rome. Smaller towns and villages are far easier as familys tend to remain in rural areas for many generations. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the Vernesi et al. 2004. In that paper, they state that they have got 80 samples from different sites from the Etruscan time. They have also received samples from modern populations with a representative sample size. They have applied several methods to avoid any kind of misinterpretation. They conclude, explicitly on several occasions that the samples from Turks are the closest of all the DNA samples. Strange enough in the Wikipedia article it looks like someone tried to omit the word Turk on purpose. Instead he refers as Anatolians, which is misleading. The paper says Turks not Anatolians of ancient origin or so. And they only had samples from Turks living in Turkey. I'm a wikipedia author myself and I find the Wikipedia article on Etrusks biased. What's wrong with associating Etrusks with Turks:). Rhetorical one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence about genectic samples from people in the region of Tuscany matching that of Murlo and Volterra in Turkey is completely inane. Volterra and Murlo are in Tuscany not in Turkey. Perhaps people from Murlo and Volterra were sampled and found to have genetic commonality with people from Turkey. Another thing that is very misleading is this discussion of whether they were from Anatolia or Turkey. Anaotlia is in Turkey so this is still fairly meaningless. Overall it seems that the genetics reinforce the history, archaeology and linguistic evidence that the people of Rasenna (Etruscans) were related to the Trojans, Lydians, the Island of Lemnos and the Phoenicians. Reference Tyre ancient Phoenician port which founded colonies in North Africa which were ruled by a King Tyr who was routed from North Africa and fled with his people to the Tyrhennian coast which was already populated by the people of Rasenna. Lydia is the southwestern coast of Turkey including Mount Olympus (no its not in Greece). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The people who do this genetic work aren't stupid. They do know how to sort through samples to find older and younger markers. If the markers go back to the days of the Etruscans, and the same markers are found at the same time in Anatolia (NOT Turkey - Turkey is a modern place that was in ancient times divided into several political units), then there can be no other explanation (the odds would be astronomical against people having these minor genetic markers in both places, and the route between the two places is traversable - and there's archaeological evidence of a connection as well! It still remains controversial of course, but if you want an abstract of the actual scientific data, here's a link: If you read the entire article (and its bibliography), you'll come back to understanding the cultural shift between Etruscia and the earlier cultures that were in what is now, generally, Tuscany.--LeValley 21:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again, no matter if Anatolia or Turkey, if now or then, the fact is that there are genetic similarities between the inhabitants of present Tuscans in Italy and present Turks in Turkey, more specifically in nowadays Turkeys region called Anatolia. No way to get around this fact. They are relatives because they have the same ancestors. This is living history. -- (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Bugge[edit]

The book was published before the date, my mistake for quoting the date exactly. --Vonones 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bugge's theory is not accepted by anyone who actually studies either Etruscan or Armenian. It's not that it's completely implausible, so much as that it's no more plausible than any of the other speculations people have put forth over the centuries (Aramaic, Ugric, Sumerian, Basque, Luvian, indigenous Mysian, Phrygian, Lydian, Illyrian, pre-Mycenaean Cretan, etc.).
At present, almost everyone agrees that Etruscan is part of the Tyrsenian family, which includes Rhaetic and Lemnian. Beyond that, most believe that this family is an isolate; there are some who argue that Tyrsenian is distantly related to Indo-European, but a direct connection to Armenian is not taken seriously.
At any rate, this discussion belongs on the Etruscan language page, not here. -- 14:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

improvement needed[edit]

I've just seen this article for the first time, and it's awful. One thing is very clear about the Etruscans: there are major problems in knowing anything much about them, because of lack of evidence and because of powerful myths that get in the way. And there has not been a lot of integrative work done on them by modern scholars. This is the first message that the article needs to give, but it's silent about it. Indeed, there is not much here other than quotes from primary or very old secondary sources; and the talk page is full of secondary-school level primary research! What a mess. Deipnosophista 06:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources Any aspects of Latin lexicology should be checked in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, not even large school dictionaries like Gaffiot! (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Deipnosophista, although I'm not hopeful that any Wiki can sort this kind of thing out. We apparently have a proposal that some aspects of Etruscia came from Sardinia, and if you go to the article on Sardinia, it is said that people from Etruscia were the first permanent settlers on Sardinia. Rather circular, no? Apparently, the kind of language and article organization that could help solve these problems doesn't come easily in the Wiki format. The first paragraph should indeed contain a brief and academic summary of current controversies and issues in Estrucan studies. You'd need an expert to do that - and experts are driven away in exasperation from articles like this one.LeValley 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


people would use the roads. roads as meaning roads is an area where cement.Romans use lava blocks as roads.Romans won the first punic war. After the second punic war there was a 50 yrs of peace. (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)lexie70.150.50.100 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Map legend query[edit]

Legend on the map (copied at right) says Etruscans expanded into the Po Valley c 750-500 BCE. Didn't Etruscan civilisation actually develop in situ from Villanovan culture, to be pushed out of the Po Valley by Celts, ca 500 BCE? It's a contraction rather than an expansion, is it not? --Wetman (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mythology versus Religion[edit]

I wonder if we might change references to Etruscan mythology to religion. What we now call mythology was a complex system of beliefs, more than a mere collection of superstitions and symbols, which may be better categorized as religion. Opinions welcome--- CassiasMunch (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with the above. It is time that we stop referring to belief systems as "myth" and instead as they were perceived by the civilization in question: "religion". The Duke of Etruscan civilization 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the distinction that "myth" refers to the stories that people told to explain the world, while "religion" refers to the rituals, priesthoods, temples, ceremonies, etc? They overlap, but are different things (religions usually incorporate myths, but also other stuff as well, and not all myths need be part of a religion). For example, the Biblical story of Creation is a Christian and Jewish myth (which some believe to be literally true, while others consider it to be a meaningful story), but the Christian and Jewish religions are a lot more than just Bible stories. What we currently have in the "Religion" section is just a basic summary of the gods they believed in, a myth about how knowledge of the gods was revealed, and a mention of their depiction of Homeric heroes in art. The first two items are relevent to both myth and religion, while the latter is really just myth (unless relevent to a hero cult). To make this more about religion it needs more about how these beliefs affected people's lives, how they worshiped the gods, what festivals they held in their honour, etc. Etruscan mythology has some details about this, but I'm not sure what is best to describe here rather than there. (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Merge Etruscan history in here. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Do not merge - Merging seems a little hasty. While I am sure it is irritating to see short articles that may appear similar the two subjects are in reality different. Perhaps a good idea would be to ask for assistance in expanding the article. I have found the member User:Simmaren to be very helpful. He was more than willing to help me expand Rostra and while it still needs work (and is missing the Rostra of Diocletian) his input was invaluable. He truly motivated me. I found that while he may not agree with something, he does not delete fully referenced material. Are you familiar with how to use in-line citations? Here are the codes needed to reference from both Internet sites and books;
[1]  = Citing Web sites as reference code.
 [2]   = Citing books as reference code.

Just open the edit box and copy and paste the needed code and fill out all the information! --Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, no more mergers right now. These articles need a lot of work first. Only when and if they are well referenced and organised will we be able to make valid judgements about any mergers. Also, shouldn't that cite template only be used where the article already uses it? References should be consistent. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ [url address .html "Article name"] Check |url= value (help). Website publisher's name. Retrieved Year, date month.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ Last name of author, First name of author (Original publishing year). Book Title. Publishing sompany. pp. Page number information is found. ISBN '''000-00000''' Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help).  Check date values in: |date= (help)

India and Sanscrit[edit]

I wish to inform the English speaking public of Bernardini Marzolla's work L'Etrusco, una lingua ritrovata (Mondadori, Milan 1984). The author proves the strict relationship between Sanscrit and Etruscan by using a rigorous philologic method (he is is a classic philologist, not an Etruscologist). He succesfully interpret a great number of epigraphic monumenta in an absolutely compelling way. He starts with his first find that itinam in Russian and Etruscan appear to have the same meaning and of course related to Latin ita. From this he gets the conviction that Etruscan may be an IE language and starts comparing it to Sanscrit, the most ancient IE known. To his own surprise the author discovers that in the Volterra magpie the word that appears in the inscription is indeed the Sanscrit word with the same meaning. Then he goes on interpreting many other inscritions. The name Tyrhsenoi is the Sanscrit Turasena, Porsenna is Purasena, aisar is aiswar, clan is jilan (fetus), suthi is shuddi. I have not got his book in my hands here and I am quoting by memory, sorry for the mistakes, I am no glottologist either, even if I studied classics and linguistics. All the bulk of his work has been started only by using Sir Monier William's dictionary. He also identifies many ancient Farsi, Phoenician and Arabic words. Putting together all the info he gets a picture of the history of the migrations of this people from India or the Indoiranian plateau to Anatolia and the Aegean that is broadly supported by and mutually confirms the testimony of Herodotus and of other ancient authors. The Etruscans came to Italy in early times, around 14th century BC, from the Middle East, however were of Indian origin.Zanzan1 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say that this is a complete and utter fallacy. For one, Sanskrit is not "the oldest IE", the oldest attested Indo-European language is in fact Hittite, a member of the Anatolian branch, funny enough. Without any background into Indo-European it's easy to be mislead on inter-relations between daughter languages, but it should be enough to say that Sanskrit is not some isolated Ur language from which you can derive the world's civilizations. This person has been mislead by standard out of India theory nonsense. Sanskrit is relatively well understood in terms of it's relationships with other Indo-Iranian languages and furthermore with 'central' IE dialects (Greek, Armenian), and any correspondences, if at all valid, will be due to loanwords (Arabic words in Farsi, well attested) or commonly inherited words from PIE via its interactions with Greek and Italic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkerCroshaw (talkcontribs) 08:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment which I overlooked.

I suppose Marzolla has corrected his views since the publication of his first book. What he now maintains (in his last book of 2005) seems to be a relationship of Etruscan with Indoaryan (see the Indoaryan superstratum in Mitanni). Whether Sanskrit is or not the most ancient IE language is irrelevant: what matters is that Etruscan inscriptions were deciphered in a more plausible and swift way in this manner. Marzolla used Sanscrit but could have used Zend or maybe Hittite, Sanscrit was in his view the most convenient. Of course not all linguistic evidence could be translated by this mean and many of its words are from other nigh languages as stated. The morphology and syntax too look more Uralic, so I think the theory of a superstratum is the most probable.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of professor's Bernardini Marzolla thesis on this same page above[edit]

After making my post here above I read carefully this page of discussion and to my surprise I found an unsigned post that gives archaeological evidence in support of his theory. There are some Etruscan founds that show Vedic India related items. Unfortunately the evidence is not discussed.Zanzan1 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the influence of the Eturscans on Ancient Rome?[edit]

What are the influence of the Eturscans on Ancient Rome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What a great topic! There is some work done now: by H. S. Versnel and L. Bonfante et al. (a new book).Zanzan32 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Research: The Myth of the 20th Century[edit]

I added the following to the Article under Religion from Der Mythos by Alfred Rosenberg. There is no reason to leave this out. Maybe someone can correct the format for me as it seemed to have malfunctioned.

"Attempts were made quite early to interpret Etruscan inscriptions on graves, mummy wrappings, and papyrus rolls, but not until Albert Grünwedel was the script successfully deciphered, and the results show the Etruscans in a hideous light. Even the Greek solar myth that the sun dies and is then reborn as a god out of the dark night and with redoubled potency, was appropriated as an Etruscan motif. But in the hands of the Etruscan priests this becomes Asiatic magic, witchcraft linked with pederasty, masturbation, the murder of boys, magical appropriation of the manna of the slaughtered by the priestly murderer, and prophecies derived from the excrement and the piled up entrails of the victims. The virile sun impregnates itself with the magical phallus on the solar disc (the Egyptian point in the sun) which finally penetrates it. From this is born a golden boy, the foetus of a boy with a magical orifice. This is the so called seal of eternity. The violence of the magical phallus is imagined as a bull which copulates with such frenzied force that the disc rolls and the phallus bearer of the horn turns to fire, the phallus of him who possesses the heavens. In endlessly repeated obscenities, the original myth is degraded into repulsive homosexual love. This is to be seen on the wall paintings of graves, as in the Golini tomb where the dead man holds a banquet with his boy lover in the next world, and where two gigantic phalluses spring up from a sacrificial fire as a result of magical satanic rite. According to the inscription, this, the lightning of perfection, is thus perfected. Translated from the jargon of magic, that means that the creature born of woman is deified after putrefying, and becomes a phallus. From the inscription of the Cippus of Perugia, there is recorded a convocation of satanic priests who perfect a spectral manifestation so as to burn in demonic frenzy. He who has this boy has the demonic knife. Eternal is the fire of the boy ..... a magus of the perfected seal. The murdered boy now becomes a little goat. Thunder personified is a metamorphosis of the son gained by violation—the perfected little goat. Here is to be found the origin of the horned apparition and the goat headed devil, whose appearance in the literature of witchcraft was hitherto an unsolved riddle. Its antique types are the Minotaur, especially the one over the well known grave of Corneto, the Tomba dei Tori, and the Greek Satyr. He clearly illustrates a crime crying out to heaven, comments Grünwedel. The meaning of these constantly repeated customs of the Etruscan religion is to be seen in the fate of the shamefully abused boy prostitute who is slit open to symbolise the birth of the diurnal sun from the egg that his apparition has developed when fertilised by the semen collected in bowls."

"The Etruscans generally dwelt with sadistic pleasure over every possible representation of torture, murder and sacrifice. The slaughter of human beings was especially delightful for them. Musically untalented, lacking any poetic gifts, incapable of producing an organic architecture of their own, and without even the rudiments of philosophy, this near eastern people devoted itself to the study of birds’ entrails, and to complex magical and sacrificial rites. Not without some technical ability, it was almost wholly dedicated to commerce, and because it was tenacious, it poisoned Roman blood and transmitted its obsession with hellish torments in the world to come to the churches..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All you did was put in huge quotes. I deleted it saying it was a copyright violation but on second thoughts it is not copyvio. However, not only would we not use such a huge quote, the book is not a reliable source (see WP:RS on Etruscan religion nor is it a significant point of view on Etruscan religion. Thus it doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But how is it not a reliable source when we even have a page on the man who wrote it (Albert Grünwedel)?? Are you saying he is not the author of the work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS. He's not an expert on the Etruscans, his work is ideologically driven, his views aren't accepted by the relevant academic community, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
There's been a lot of use made out of the Etruscans since they aren't around to refute it. Alfred Rosenberg's agenda in this snippet was to make the Etruscans responsible for the cruel and creepy side of Rome because he was a Nazi and wanted to make Mussolini look good. German nationalists have a complicated relationship with Rome and A.R. was considered nutty even by the rest of the Nazis. He probably should've courted the fascists in Hungary with flattering hogwash about the Etruscans. Being Estonian you think he'd be that smart. This was a best selling book in Germany thanks to censorship and the appeal of "mystical" ideas was to hook young soldiers into having fanatical morale. As excerpts show it was a mix of shock tactics, lies, and hysterical anger which was the Nazi house style. Rosenberg was hung for war crimes at Nuremberg. The Etruscan inscriptions he describes have never been identified. 2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Etruscan place names[edit]


& Tusculum : The name of "Tusculum" means "the settlement of the Tusci(the Etruscans)", but it was not an Etruscan city. It was a Latin city (a city from Latium). The name of Tusculum shows us that it might be conquered by the Etruscans before... Böri (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Verona? : from History of Verona: "The origins of Verona are disputed... a people of uncertain origins, perhaps connected to the Etruscans: the name would have meant "Venetian city on the river" in the Etruscan language." Böri (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth of Etruria = Troy: Popular belief?[edit]

Now, I'm not at all sure whether or not this is true, personally I don't believe it, but I've heard stories that the Etruscan people stem from Troas, Troy. I might mention that I find it likely this is merely a sought after speculation, perhaps as old as the Aeneid. I would like to see a section about this, but I also have to warn that as far as I know this is only speculation and has probably been thouroughly disproved - in which case such a section could act as a positive mythbuster, which I have experienced Wikipedia to be rich of.
The short version is that there is a "connection" between "Etruria" and "Troas," which roughly outputs a mere "tro(/oi)." Treat this as a request in need of discussion. (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Etruria was assimilated by Rome around 500 BC?[edit]

I'm confused by this. Likewise, "After 500 BC the political destiny of Italy passed out of Etruscan hands." This all happened before the Battle of Cumae (475 BC)? So Rome controlled Etruscia before that battle and before Carthage was defeated by Syracuse (480 BC)?

Rome was barely a republic fresh out from Etruscan domination in 500 BC. The article even gives the date of Roman assimilation as 550 BC, when, at least according to Roman tradition, Rome still had an Etruscan king. Rome didn't even conquer the adjacent Etruscan city-state of Veii until just before the Gallic invasion in the 4th century BC. Rome only conquered Etruria by the 3rd century BC, and assimilation almost certainly took decades, if not centuries, to occur after the initial conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rasna = Thrace?[edit]

It would seem not too great a linguistic stretch to imagine that the Etruscans own name for themselves, Rasna, might in some way relate to the word 'Thrace' and its various ancient adjectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the world of random speculation, not the world of the linguists. Historical linguistics studies the regular change of some sounds into others. These changes are expressed in laws. So, we don't speak of linguistic stretches, we speak of regular sound changes by which Rasna could have become Thrace, backed up by similar known changes in other words. That is what the historical linguists do for a living. An encyclopedic article therefore would have to present the linguistic view. If it is only someone's unsupported opinion it isn't encyclopedic. Sorry to intrude on you like this as I was off WP but someone chose to pull my chain and I saw this. My view is not arrogance, it is truth as I understand it. If you know better, ignore me. Truth is not what the democracy votes it to be or a matter of personal courtesy from me to you. A thing is true or not true and any of us getting mad about it changes nothing. If I know what is true and you do not, your resenting that fact does not make me arrogant, it makes you arrogant. Who are you to resent the truth? Bye now. If you want to hear flattery don't pull my chain any more. (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Bickering aside, I agree with the view of that an encyclopedia isn't the place for such speculation without sources. Blue Danube (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Varro on the Etruscans in the origin of Rome[edit]

Lingua Latina V: "In Suburanae regionis parte princeps Caelius Mons a Caele Vibenna, Tusco duce nobili, qui cum sua manu dicitur Romulo venisse auxilio contra Tatium regem. Hinc post Caelis obitum, quod nimis munita loca tenerent neque sine suspicione essent, deducti dicuntur in planum. Ab eis dictus Vicus Tuscus, et ideo ibi Vortumnus stare quod is deus Etruriae princeps; de Caelianis qui a suspicione liberi essent traductos in eum locum qui vocatur Caeliolum." Previous editors may wish to take this into account.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the same theme of the Etruscan presence in the origin of Rome:

Dumezil cites Properce I Roman Elegy (IV 1, 9) vv. 9-32: 3 tribes and their 3 chiefs: Ramnes of Romulus, Luceres of Lucumo, Titienses of T. Tatius. Ramnes politic and cult: (comrades of Remus Prop. 4,1, 9-26), Luceres warriors (Lucumo 26-9): Tit. wealth (Tatius 30). Naissance de Rome chapt. 2 p. 86-127, Prop. et les tribus etc.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Varro writes that the poet Volnius, who wrote Etruscan tragedies, said the names of the 3 tribes were all Etruscan. Cited also by Versnel.Zanzan32 (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Origin of the Etruscans[edit]

I want to ask the wikipedia community why the research book The Armenian Origin of the Etruscans by Robert Ellis is not being included in the history of the Etruscans? I have periodically checked this page, and noticed this information added by some and repeatedly deleted by others.

In the introduction of this book Ellis writes thus: "The Armenians, like the Celts, are now few in number. It will be my endeavour to prove that the race to which they belong once occupied a much greater extent of country, and were spread westward from Armenia to Italy under the names of Phrygians, Thracians, Pelasgians, Etruscans, and other designations. As the expansion of the Latin language from its original seat at Rome obliterated in its advance the greater number of the Celtic dialects, so the expansion of the same language in part, but yet more the expansion of the Greek, obliterated in Europe and Asia Minor the dialects akin to the Armenian, until it was only in the original seat of the race, in Armenia itself, that a representative of those dialects survived."

Also this phrase in the Architecture section: "Some scholars also see in Urartean [Armenian] art, architecture, language and general culture traces of kinship to the Etruscans of the Italian peninsula.[14]" supports the first point and actually pertains to origin and history more so than Architecture.

I propose the Robert Ellis book be included in the list of references and an Armenian connection be proposed under origin and history. Thinkfood (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The search for the Etruscans by James Howard Wellard - 1973 - 223 pages - Snippet view "Robert Ellis, Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, had no more success in 1861 with his theory of the Armenian origin of Etruscan." This minor work of the mid-19th century doesn't seem to have had much impact, unless we were doing an exhaustive study of all the rejected suggestions I don't think it belongs here. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the message, but my question remains as yet unanswered. Your citation merely shows an opinion by one author against another, not facts pertaining to the Armenian origins of the Etruscans. As far as is evident Eliss' research has more merit than any other work due to the fact that it is based on linguistic evidence, while others are based on speculation. In addition, I don't think an entire work based on such research can be called a "minor work" and is not a candidate to be placed with other "rejected suggestions". If this piece of evidence is to be rejected, then we need a scholarly refutation, as opposed to an opinion. If such a refutation cannot be presented, this means that the Armenian origins of the Etruscans remains at least viable and must be added as a special section of the Etruscan civilization.
In addition, my second concern is also as yet not addressed in that it is connected to my first concern: Ellis provides linguistic evidence, while Kurkjian provides evidence of "art, architecture, language and general culture traces of kinship to the Etruscans" by the Armenians. These two points in conjunction establish at the very least a direct mention of these facts in the article page. Thinkfood (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Etruscians Albanian language connection[edit]

I personally do not understand why this connection is not mention in the article while by a single Google book search ones can find a plenty of literature ..Pelasgon (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Parting shot[edit]

I'm off WP now and got no plans to come back. This was a favorite project of mine so I thought I would give you some basics. I see you want to relate Etruscan to Albanian and Armenian. The big problem in relating it to anything is doing that. The Etruscan language is not unknown. The longer inscriptions cannot be read yet but eventually they will be. More inscriptions keep turning up. You would have to show, for example, a clear linguistic connection between Etruscan and Armenian. Otherwise, so to speak, the professionals will laugh you to scorn. As for their origin, there are two mainstream theories: indigenous and Asia Minor. The indigenous have archaeology on their side: continuous occupation in a few cases into the Middle Bronze Age, with no signs of intrusion anywhere. The Italian theorists form a pretty solid block in promulgating this view. The Asia Minor view is still pushed by a few holdouts but we are all the way back to the Final Bronze Age on that one. The last one I read was pretty hysterical. He sounded as though he had been trying to write for WP. It won't go down as one of his lucid or rational works. The problem is, the Lydians did not speak Etruscan, they spoke Lydian. Moreover, they did not hold the coast, the Greeks held it. It is a big topic, boys. What does Lemnos signify? The Sea Peoples? Not one knows; there's only speculation. All the evidence is contradictory. Somebody lied, but who? And finally I see you have a good many minor historical questions that can be easily answered by reference to any standard Roman history book. What, you like to talk on WP? Sometimes I have, but my time is running out now. That gets to the final point. This article has not substantially changed in years and undoubtedly is not going to. Nothing can ever be settled. Does 2 + 2 = 4? Do you think we are going to find out by arguing on WP? Don;t waste your time; get a few good books. Some "editors" are no doubt going to continue to push phony issues. Don't be taken in, get on to something useful, which this article and encyclopedia are not.Dave (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum.

invitation to comment[edit]

Since there's no project page specifically pertaining to the Etruscans, this seems like the best place to post a notice on the following.

There is an AfD discussion for a new article Vegoia and Egeria. (The much-needed article Vegoia was recently created, if this has escaped your notice.) You are invited to give your views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Etruscan and Rome like to join[edit]

Hei i like to Contribute. Cane Canem Rolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthevine (talkcontribs) 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Etruscan Language[edit]

I find this article very interesting on the Etruscan language and where it might have come from.... Hungarian. I am surprised to not see it mentioned in the article.

I personally know of a couple of Hungarians that have a particular family name that they were able to trace back to a town that now is in Transylvania, which we know was occupied by Hungarians. This is the only town that has their name since the first recording except for a small family in Italy that also has the same very unique last name. Of course they were found via facebook and claim to have no relatives in Hungary and also their last name dates back to the first recording of it in their city.

Pure coincidence or maybe....

Just had to throw it out there to you specialists!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbug80 (talkcontribs) 22:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Urartu reference[edit]

I have tried and failed many times to battle with specious references by nationalist Armenian "academics", and this appears to be another case. First, they would have the pages of Wikipedia make claims of some direct descendence of the modern Armenian people from the ancient Urartuians, and now they connect Urartu to the Etruscans? This reference, by the very nature of its claim, is unreliable and should therefore be removed, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Etruscan people are descendant of proto Turks[edit]

Their linguistic says so. Tursca or Tursci means Turk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


The article says the Etruscans were "essentially a theocracy," but does not explain further. Were they a theocracy? And if so, could something be put in the article saying in what way exactly they were theocratic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses.hetfield (talkcontribs) 20:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

New suggestion for meaning of Etruscan[edit]

Since Romans called Etruscan "creators the Tusci or Etrusci." (as cited on Etruscan civilization Wikipedia entry, second sentence), and a variety of hypotheses exist on what Etrusci means, I would like to add my hypothesis. Again, I am using Gaelic as my language source for interpretation. Etrusci could be derived from Gaelic words/syllables as follows: E: similar to Iu= prefix derived from Iudhach (jew), as used in Iupater (Jupiter...IU-jew, pater-father (note pater is not father in Gaelic, rather pater is the latin word for father.)) Trus: 1) similar to túr, meaning tower...possibly paired with as or is

     2) or similar to turas, meaning journey, trip, time, occasion
     3) or similar to treas, meaning third

Tus: if the Roman use of Tusci is more correct than Etrusci, then it is possible Tus denotes the word tús (start, beginning, origin) Ci: similar to ceann=word/prefix, ceann meaning is: head, end, top. When used before words, it means chief, clan, head...) examples of use before words: ceann-cinnidh (clan chief); ceann-bhaile (capital city); ceannard (head, chief, leader, commander);

Therefore it could mean: 1) Jewish Tower clan (Iu+túr+(as/is)+ceann=Iutúr(as/is)ceann) 2) Jewish Traveling clan (Iu+turas+ceann=Iuturasceann) 3) Jewish Third clan (Iu+treas+ceann=Iutreasceann) 4) Jewish Origin clan (Iu+tus+ceann=Iutusceann)

Of these, Jewish Tower clan speaks to their building capabilities. Jewish traveling clan would explain why there existed an Etruscan Sea. Jewish third clan, might denote one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jewish Origin clan might mean clan originating from (descended from)Jewish people.

I have used Essential Gaelic Dictionary (by Boyd Robertson and Ian MacDonald) for my translations to create these possibilities for alternate meanings of Etruscan.

Ladyofthelands (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)ladyofthelands, 21 October 2013

Please remove - not controversial[edit]

I don't know how to edit, but on the right side, the following PEOPLE are listed in the political structure bar. They are not a political structure, they are people - people believed to be leaders of three of the 12 founding cities.


-  Unknown Tyrrhenus
-       Unknown Tarchon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 

france ???[edit]

Hello i am corsican boy.. Corsican people are italian.. They have italian name and italian culture and is not france. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Corsica belongs to France. Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
What you did in the article is pure vandalism. This has nothing to do with people or names or culture. It is about the fact that now Corsica belongs to France. -- (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Uncited "Literature" section.[edit]

Re the queried material relating to "Varrio" - I suspect that's Varro, but only on a mere hunch. The article history shows that the section heading and most of its content were added in this uncited edit.

[copied and pasted] "Etruscan literature covers the Etruscan texts, written in a space of seven centuries, since the Etruscan people adopted the alphabet Greek Ischia and Cumae to the VII BC until it was no longer used, at the beginning of the 1st century, period in which disappeared already latest inscriptions in Chiusi, Perugia and Arezzo. Survive her few fragments, religious and especially funeral, most of whom are late (from the 4th century BC). In addition to the original texts that have survived to this day, we have a large number of quotations and allusions from classical authors. It should be noted that in the first century a. C. Diodorus of Sicily wrote that literary culture was one of the great achievements of the etruscans. we don`t know too much of it, and even what is known of their language is due to the repetition of the same few words in the many inscriptions found (by way of the modern epitaphs) contrasted in bilingual or trilingual texts with latin and the Carthaginian. Out of the aforementioned genres, is just one such Vorrio (Vorrius) cited in classical sources mention."

The editor started a new article on "Etruscan Literature", which was deleted because it had no references; content was essentially the same as we see here, translated by the editor from a corresponding article on Spanish (or perhaps the Basque) Wikipedia. Some edits since have improved the grammar and spelling, but no cite has been added. Nothing particularly contentious in what's written but it might be easier to delete and start afresh. Haploidavey (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Powerful and wealthy[edit]

I think 'powerful and wealthy' should be removed from the introduction. Nationalists and regionalists always want to have a rich and powerful history, and every historian studying a civilisation thinks the civilisation he is studying is pretty special. But compared to other civilisations at the time this one is not special in any way except being relatively rich in the region at the time. Other civilisations at the time like the Greek, Celts, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Olmecs, Carthagians controlled much bigger parts of the world, Alexander conquered half the world shortly after and the Roman Empire half of Europe. This was a smallish civilisation that even at it's hey-day just controlled a portion of northern and middle Italy. Sure it was relatively rich because of trade and mining, so objectively you can put 'relatively rich' in the introduction, but is that something we want?

Can't we describe these civilisations in neutral terms without resorting to these unnecessary claims of grandeur? Wikipedia is meant to describe reality anyway, not to add these kind of value-assertions. It doesn't add anything and in this case is surrounded with too many doubts. It's too much a question of opinion to be listed so prominently in the introduction. If it is interesting to make these kind of arguments (i don't think so) you could add a paragraph somewhere in the article with arguments in favour or against. -- (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources always comment on the wealth of the Etruscans, whose tombs are far richer than those of the Celts or Greeks (and stuffed with Greek art). Unlike the monarchical empires beyond Europe, Etruscan wealth was spread widely across a rather large elite class - they are more like Renaissance Venice (and Rome and Athens) than the monarchies. I don't think 400 years+ is "shortly after". 750 BC is very different from 350 BC - the Persians for example were still mostly living in tents, under the vague rule of the Assyrians. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
First of all you're not replying at all to my comments on the necessity to make these kind of claims in the introduction of an article. Second of all I already admitted that the people living there were on average rich, and that you could theoretically put this introduction, but it was only a small civilisation, so that doesn't mean its total wealth was larger than that of other civilisations around that time as those were much bigger. (in case you want to make the argument that wealth is power)
Also at around 500 BCE the etruscan civilisation was still more or less at its biggest, and Alexander started his conquest only 150 years later, not 400, and the roman civilisation rose as the etruscan civilisation fell in the same breath. How can you say that is not shortly after?
Also you gave some arguments for them being relatively rich, but none for them being especially powerful.-- (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'neutral terms' -- we can try to have NPOV about which terms we use and how, but the idea that there is some way to 'describe reality' of human societies without those terms carrying some set of values is a non-starter.
It is clear from the literature that the Etruscans were unusually materially well-off in their sphere of influence. To say that a century and a half later some other civilization was wealthier does not change that, any more than saying 'The Romans had a large empire' is invalidated by the later, and much larger, British empire.
Similarly, 'relatively rich' is a tautology -- all rich societies are measured in relative terms. The Song Dynasty, the Mayan Empire, and the contemprary United States were all rich in this way, and no one is confused by those claims. However, since wealth is a form of power, the phrase 'powerful and wealthy' risks being a tautology as well, unless the kind of power is explained. The Etruscans' power seems mainly to have been mercantile rather than militaary, and we could perhaps re-write that sentence to say "...wealthy and influential trading civilization of ancient Italy...' or similar cshirky (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course there is such a thing as neutral terms, I quote from WP:NPOV While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity.. I mean, sure, everything is relative, but exactly because everything is relative, we still have to define our language such that we can define terms predominantly on one end of the neutrality spectrum as 'neutral terms' and terms predominantly on the other end as 'biased terms', with 'subjective terms' somewhere in between (also depending on context of course). Instead of saying an empire was large you can describe from where to where it reached, or how many km2 it was, instead of saying Albert Einstein was smart you can point to his achievements in theoretical physics, instead of saying Ivanka Trump is beautiful you can point to her achievements in modelling. Of course that takes longer, but that's why you don't necessarily have to put them into the first sentence, and you can stick with more factual information there. This is not a preposterous concept that I'm advocating, it's in fact done this way all over wikipedia.
That also goes for 'rich', sure, it's a concept based on relativity, but by saying 'relatively rich', i'm not trying to make a tautology, but emphasising how relative the richness in this case is, being pretty limited in spacial and temporal scope and considering the small size of the civilisation!
And the 'powerful' is even more contentious, sure with money comes power, but this civilisation was not a single state, the civilisation was relatively small and consisted of a lot of city-states that were not necessarily politically aligned while its contemporaries and near-contemporaries wear bigger and more united, so they were relatively not so powerful.-- (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
But starting out with 'sure, [rich] is a concept based on relatively', then noting that the Etruscans were relatively rich, means the Etruscans were rich.
There is no spatial dimension to their wealth -- they were a trading civilization, not an empire. Temporal scope is likewise meaningless in a historical context -- if they were rich when they existed, and relative to their neighbors, they were rich, and given common use, readers won't think this is a statement saying 'They were rich compared to the U.S. of 2017', or the Argentina of 1904', for that matter. To say a civilization was rich is precisely to say it had significant economic resources for its time, in its region. And their wealth has nothing to do with the political alignment of the city-states, since the article clearly calls the Etruscans a civilization, not a country or a political union etc.
I agree with you about powerful, which, in an introductory context might suggest military prowess rather than cultural and economic influence. I think the first sentence could be re-written to make that clearer. cshirky (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I see your point! Actually I didn't mean that necessarily the word 'relatively' should be included and i didn't realise it came across in that way before, I just tried to emphasise the relativeness to argue against unqualified value-assertions. I also looked for a way to make the introduction more specific in regards to the wealth, what do you think of this:
The Etruscan civilization (/ᵻˈtrʌskən/) is the modern name given to a civilization in the area corresponding roughly to Tuscany, western Umbria, and northern Lazio in ancient Italy that grew very wealthy through trading and mining.?-- (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see any problem with "a powerful and wealthy civilization of ancient Italy" - this actually contextualizes the claims, and I think makes it sufficiently clear that comparisons with ancient China or the Olmecs are not in fact being attempted. What the article needs is more on the wealth lower down, which all the decent sources will provide. The same for the power, but this is less needed. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You are trolling at this point, and I've a mind to have this article protected from contentious IPs like you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
People like you are exactly why wikipedia has a steadily falling number of editors, even though it's one of the most-used sites on the web. First you revert my constructive edits with as the only reason given that you don't know who I am.[2] Now you are threatening to block me from editing this article even though I'm following policy, and take to discussing this before even reaching 3RR, and again without even given a single argument. Please read WP:AGF. -- (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Wealthy people don't get that way from the size of their nations. Tuscany might look small on a map but it was densely populated with cities and they had a famous merchant navy and lots of handicrafts. I'm betting they were one of the wealthiest peoples in Europe at the time and what they left behind proves it. I've got to say that comments on this subject are some of the stupidest in the world and I wish the Etruscans could stop dumb people from knowing about them. 2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)