Talk:Etruscan mythology

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

A New Reference[edit]

There is a book: The Religion of the Etruscan, Erika Simon Please use this for reference. There could be many things added to this article AND verified by the addition of some things from this book. And remove the reference to Charles Leeland. he was not a historian. He was a folklorist and fiction writer. Venus Satanas (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The origin of Nethuns[edit]

The 'Child of the Waters': A Revaluation of Vedic Apam Napat, Ellison Banks Findly, Numen, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Dec., 1979), pp. 164-184' (abstract on JSTOR here) which builds on this common knowledge?

As you can read in references like the above, Latin Neptunus is firmly an Indo-European deity long ago connected with Indo-Iranian Apām Napāt. Both these deities are derivable from the Proto-Indo-European root

  • nepot-. Since Indo-European is hypothesized to have used an "Omaha"-type kinship system the root means both "grandson" and "nephew" without conflict. Both the root and the understanding that Neptune is an Indo-European name has been published an innumerable amount of times and is well-known in mainstream IEist circles as well as Etruscologist circles of which you are apparently not a part.

Try reading first:

  • Religion in Ancient Etruria, Jean-René Jannot (2005), p.158: "[Nethuns'] name probably comes from Umbrian."
  • The Religion of the Etruscans, Erika Simon/Nancy DeGrummond (2006), p.59 "The Piacenza liver and the liber linteus of Zagreb show that Nethuns, whose name comes from Latin Neptunus (Neptune), was an important Etruscan god."

As you can see above, Jannot and Simon will have to duke it out about *which* Indo-European language Nethuns is from, but either way, the name is firmly Indo-European and ergo inevitably comes from

  • nepot-.

--Glengordon01 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple google search yields other references online. After you've actually read any book on Etruscan as above, try also reading "Socially Determined Variation in Ancient Rome" (pdf). Page 27: "Based on examples like Etruscan nevtlane < νεοπτολεµος, we expect Greek -πτ- to yield Etruscan -t-/-ϑ- (which is in fact consistently the case in Etruscan loans from Latin, e.g. neϑuns < neptunus)." (Personally, that statement is a bad linguistic arguement but my point here is that everyone knows that Nethuns is from Neptunus except book-phobic Wikipedians.)
--Glengordon01 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a perfectly valid point in asking for sources. These wikipedia entries are not just ways for people to demonstrate what they may or may not know, but instead are supposed to be academic sources, with information that needs to be supported for a variety of reasons.
Did you know reasons for citing include:
  • It shows that the points you are making in your work are supported by other people - your arguments are stronger if you can back up what you say with evidence.
  • It enables other people reading your work to find the things you have referred to quickly and easily.
  • You will be recognizing the intellectual input someone else has made to your work
While no one was necessarily questioning the material, that type of information needs to be given a reference. If not only to prove that the information is vaild, but also to give others bibliography to learn more.
Additionally, I am glad to see you are using “Etruscologist” Have a great one!--Kattie90 00:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You have a point in asking for sources and this would be expected of a newbie.
You also say: "but instead are supposed to be academic sources". Um no. If you told that to any university professor, they would fail you for sure. Perhaps you meant to say "but instead are supposed to be **AT MOST** AN INITIAL academic REsource." But source? Ugh, no. Kattie90, are you sure you aren't being sarcastic? You're being funny, right? --Glengordon01 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is Etruscologist not Etruscanologist![edit]

Sorry but this is so ridiculous! I have found that more times on Wikipedia than I can count. Speaking as one, I can say that a person who studies the Etruscans is an Etruscologist. Look it up in a dictionary: Check it out at's Entry. Then try to look up Etruscanologist... --Kattie90 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Small issue for the petty. Technically, your use of "Etruscologist", based on a Latin exonym Etrusci, embarrasses your whole point even more because the politically proper term is in fact Rasenologist (based on the Etruscans' own ethnonym), that is, if you really need to count holes in the ceiling.
Besides, an Egyptologist studies Egypt; an Eskimologist studies Eskimos; a Tibetanologist studies Tibetans. So it's understandable how "Etruscanologists" would be expected to study "Etruscans" whereas "Etruscologists" would be expected to study... *Etruscos. If Egyptology is the study of Egyptians, shouldn't it be "Etruriologist" anyway?? And what about all the other fun alternatives: "Tyrrhenologist", "Tyrsenologist", "Tuscologist", etc.
I hardly think most normal people are taken aback by minor terminological variability nor confused by it. Do sane people fly off the handle when "egotist" is used instead of "egoist"?
Start a campaign and get those emails flying, Kattie. Many people more educated than you have called them Etruscanologists and it's small potatoes over a title that most probably don't deserve anyways:
--Glengordon01 10:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it is not as important as some other Etruscan issues. However, I am correct in the fact that it is Etruscologist. People in the field don’t call themselves Rasenologist or whatever else you mentioned. Yes, it is based on the Latin term. Yes, there are other linguistic terms that could, with valid linguistic rationale, be used to refer to the study of the Etruscans. I’m just giving information about the actual, correct term used in the academic field, that with a little investigation one can see it is indeed the case.
It very well may be true that people more educated than I have called them by that title. However, it doesn’t make them correct, it simply makes them uninformed. If a person at an archaeological conference began talking about an “Etruscanologist”, it would immediately call to attention the probable inexperience in the subject matter. Unfortunately, in the academic world, these types of things, little mistakes, can be used to judge the quality and veracity of arguments as a whole. Hence, it is not “petty”.
Please, I don’t want to have a “discussion” here about this, I’m not going to post about it anymore, because it is really not an arguable point. Additionally, I really don’t want to argue with someone who just doesn't want to be wrong and is excessively sarcastic to boot. Call them whatever you want. But at least now you can’t say you were never told.
p.s. notice that in your google search of “etruscanologist” that the term is only used 27 times?
--Kattie90 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously Etruscologist is more common in usage so if you still feel that my freely exposing my own errors is telling you that I "don't want to be wrong" or that I "can't admit to being wrong" (??), you're having an arguement with your own psychosis.
You said quote-unquote: "Look it up in a dictionary, and don't embarrass yourself by calling it Etruscanologists". Besides pretentiously feigning your own infallibility, your insistance on unforgiving English perfection is potentially racist. Afterall, we all know that English is not the most common language on the internet. Mandarin is, and I'm wagering that there's a 99.5% chance you never bothered to learn it, so get off your linguistic high horse.
Many others such as myself have grown up in bilingual or multilingual environments where English is spoken alongside other languages and I've always spoken more than two languages since I was a baby, English and some Swedish at home being my first two, followed by French starting from kindergarten. Then German in junior high. Mandarin came later and is an on-going adventure :) Since I'm equally proficient in English and French I sometimes confuse these two or any of the aforementioned languages together in my head, unintentionally inventing new words through a kind of, shall we say, "Grammarian Tourette's Syndrome" whose utterances only stuffy English purists such as yourself could find offensive.
Smart people *seek* to understand someone, while daft people obsess over shibboleths and wordgames because they aren't educated enough to respect the ethnolinguistic complexities of the real world. If you were multilingual at all, or even had friends who were, travelled at all outside your drab neighbourhood, or even had a grasp of the complexities of comparative linguistics you would recognize how petty this insular view of yours is. Either you need to rethink your views on this, or you need to return to your trailer home.
PS: The very fact that you didn't catch the intentional error I made above of "Tibetanology" shows that you're just as "embarrassing" as anyone else and you can tell Professor Hu Zizhi and Doctor Zhang Degang that mistyping China Tibetology Press as "China Tibetanology Press" on their own website ( is an "embarrassment" to Kattie90. I'm sure you'll make tonnes of friends once you get your PhD like they have, won't you. Really, try adjusting your own attitude, eh? It's a beautiful world out there, don't be a sourpuss.
--Glengordon01 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Glengordon, this is a discussion page on topics related to Etruscan myth, not how many languages you speak or how much information you can look up on the internet. Let's keep it relevant. You say a lot of interesting things here, but it's too bad none of them are your own ideas. So the next time you want to say something profound about the Etruscans, why don't you put it out into a truly scholarly community where real scholars can tear them apart, and not on wikipedia which can be edited by 8 year olds. - User:filonemonk
Follow your own advice and keep it relevant by quoting valid *bibliographic references* like I have. No one cares whether Kattie90 thinks (s)he is an Etruscologist but nothing stopped her/his trollish, god-king comments. Glengordon01 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw, grownups who use search-engines can't avoid Wikipedia entries which poison all search results, so I work with that reality by providing the information and bibliographic references that you self-serving chumps can't provide (since they are picked up by search-engine spiders). In this way these said grownups can have an easier time tracking down the information they need online, while you and your 8-year-old friends slander everyone behind anonymous nicks and IPs. Don't forget to provide a bibliographic reference next time you type. Thanks a bunch. Glengordon01 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it is so great that you provide "information and bibliographic references" for everybody, glengordon. You're really fixing wikipedia all by your little self. You're the robin hood for people who can't think for themselves. And it's really nice that you insult everyone who comes here. Although I'm not so sure that anyone who "can't avoid" wikipedia doesn't deserve to be insulted. Especially people who can't NOT CLICK on a wikipedia search results. I'm just so glad that you spend your precious time here. If for no other reason than you can continue the conversation on the difference between "Etruscologist" and "Etruscanologist". Here's the secret: it's two letters. Now I'm not going to give you the bibliographic reference to that one because I'm sure a genius like you can do it yourself. Filonemonk 05:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging lesser deities of Etruscans[edit]

Since there is so little actual information on Etruscan mythology, and so much of even that is just retellings of Greek myth, it seems excessive to have so many dozens of articles that are sure to be perpetual stubs until the end of time. Although certainly articles on the most important deities of the Etruscans, like Tinia, merit articles, would anyone object to (or support) a merge of all the lesser deities of the Etruscans (including ones who currently don't have articles at all, just redirects to the equivalent Greek or Roman god, like Turms) into this article using an organized and comprehensive list format which will allow for future expansion, but make the entries more accessible to editors by not centralizing them instead of hiding them away in countless stubs. I've had lots of success with past mergers on a smaller scale, like combining all the Greco-Roman wind gods to Anemoi; the only difference with this one will be that since there are so many lesser gods about whom there is little information, I'll use a table to improve readability—a few months ago I actually tried this same merger without a table, though that attempt was deleted in a computer crash, and while it worked OK, readability, organization, and finding the specific entries was somewhat laborious in ordinary paragraph format (even though I'm a fun of paragraphs) since it consisted of so many smaller entries, so I've been experimenting more with tables recently, and have found that they're remarkably effective at remedying all of these problems. Tables like the ones at List of Latin phrases and an interwiki-in-construction one I've been experimenting with at User:Silence/Deae have looked great. So, what do you think? If there are no objections, I'll go ahead with it. -Silence 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed joke entry[edit]

|- | Daniel Cavanagh-Maddock || God of cigarettes, most often portrayed as a nude, stone-faced adolescent with a curious lack of sideburns. He was the Etruscan counterpart to the Greek Heracles, noted for his remarkable strength and his keen eye. Due to the latter talent, he was made the sentry of the underworld, where he "kept dixie" whilst Charun "risked it for a biscuit." Daniel Cavanagh-Maddock was a broken, tortured soul who cried in lament to his lost love. He perished after the hyphen from his name was ommitted, although he was resurrected after he purchased an electric blue Renault Clio. || it

This guy is actually a real person and I know him. And he does own an electric blue Clio and he has no sideburns! I'm wondering who wrote this.

Usil, no such god ever existed[edit]

Infuriating. Let me tell you why. The word usil is written on the Piacenza Liver as well as on the Liber Linteus (with variants usli and uslane). Isn't it funny how there is no trace whatsoever of one image of Usil, such a supposedly prominent god at that, being the very life-giving Sun in the sky!? There are millions of images of Ra and Apollo, yet curiously none of Usil! Excuse me let me more accurately write it with the double-asterisks of hearsay and doubt: **Usil. Etruscanologists ahve goofed up but nobody's making them eat their words. On the back side of the Piacenza Liver are two words which are supposed to be read together, not seperate: tiur usils. First of all, usils is marked in the genitive case with the suffix -s while the first word tiur is not (hence in the nominative case). So this is clearly a semantic pattern of "TIUR of USIL". We know conclusively that tiur means "month" or "moon". Tiur is used extensively enough in dates, as on the Pyrgi Tablets, to make its translation unquestionable. Now we can read "month/moon of USIL". On the Liber Linteus, usli and uslane are found with θesane (thesane). Since θesane means "in the morning" (locative of *θesan where -an marks the action noun of verb stem *θes-), it stands to reason that these two locatives marked in historical *-i, usli and uslane, signify a time of day as well, likely to be translated as "in the evening". Hence usil means "evening" and now we know what the ritual-relevant phrase on the back of the Piacenza Liver states: Tiur usil-s "moon of the evening". --Glengordon01 08:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how there is no trace whatsoever of one image of Usil
???? There are several bronze mirrors with his name written on it, check the famous image with Uprium written on it (possibly the Etruscan Hyperion.) Usil may be mentioned in the Salian Hymn as ozeul but this is speculative. His name is akin to other Italic sun gods such as Ausel (see Festus) Ausarn and Sol.
And if you think Apollo is a sun god originally oh dear..................
Now, now. Don't get into a tizzy. Calm down and listen like a good puppy.
  • The Salian Hymn isn't worth responding to. It's "lunatic fringe". Don't go there.
  • Ausel, Ausarn and Sol have nothing to do with Etruscan but you apparently don't know they come from IE
  • seh₂wl̥ "sun" and
  • h₂eus- "to shine". Yet any Etruscan specialist will tell you that Etruscan is a **not** an Indo-European language (see Etruscan language), so you're barking up yet another dead tree.
  • On the Liber Linteus, by the way, there are many diametric oppositions stated other than just phrases like Cis-um θesane uslane-c mlaχe. "And on the 3rd, in the morning and in the evening [it] was blessed." Other noteworthy phrases to think about are Etnam celu-cn; etnam aθumi-tn. "Then the earth; then the sky" and haθec repinec "both ahead and behind". This is just part of the same repetitious pattern found in the large religious text.
--Glengordon01 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1) What if the correct interpretation is Von Szabo's assertion that this scene refers to Usil in his role as protector of chariot races and athletic contests?? The Etruscans were famous for their devotion to chariots and races, and Roman lore stated that even the Circus was founded by the Etruscans. And what was the Circus's primary deity in Roman times? Hmmmmm...........could it be Sol?? To support this; see the Etruscan Bronze Chariot axel pieces that appear to be a symbol of a sun god from Vulci. Also why is one of the figures not endowed with any divine symbols? This could show he is mortal. And why would Usil be handing his crown to his father signifying a change of power when he is the younger deity (should be the other way around....)
2) Read my word 'speculative' before going off the deep end about using lunatic fringe sources. Its obviously not lunatic enough to be mentioned by Loeb scholars I might add. It is also far, far, far less speculative than your linking of various and disparate myths in your analysis of Apollo that appear to be based solely on a subjective opinion. You speak like the issue of Apollo's origin is conclusively solved, and hence your argument is undeniable; well nothing could be further from fact.
3) Oh please, where did I ever say that E was a IE language?????? Terms can be influenced by other language groups you know!?!?!?!? In fact, you use an example below for Apollo, despite this example being far greater separated in area and time elapsed than Usil would be for the IE terms for the Sun that I mentioned.
4) I disagree with you on many things, but I did like your analysis of the Liber. Isn't he refereed to as Uslans anyway on this?? If so, how do we even know he is the same figure. Could be a straw man argument, but you seem to know far more about the Liber than I do.
Oh and BTW, ad hominem attacks indicate alot of things about the person making them, but it doesn't win debates.
-- User:PaganSocialist
Ad hominem attacks against trolls and clowns is merely justice executed. Besides the only thing that wins debates is logical reasoning so if you don't have it, all your niceties mean squat to anyone who counts (ie. the educated).
You say: "1) What if the correct interpretation is Von Szabo's assertion that this scene refers to Usil in his role as protector of chariot races and athletic contests??"
I'd say that you're unable or unwilling to distinguish between "assertions" (quoting your own word) and facts.
You say: "It is also far, far, far less speculative than your linking of various and disparate myths in your analysis of Apollo that appear to be based solely on a subjective opinion."
Here, you're incapable of seperating your own interpretations of facts from the facts themselves. Using an adjective three times is cute if you have ADHD but it doesn't make your opinion any more logically persuasive to me. Since Herodotus had already explained that the Etruscans are from Turkey, and this is in fact consensus among specialists based on a list of material culture comparisons as well as linguistic arguements in its favour (and ignoring lunatic pop-culture fringe), the notion that Etruscan religion is based on Near-East mythologies is perhaps subjective but also nearly inescapable. It is in fact the default theory because the "autochthonous theory" doesn't really exist anymore except to those that hold on for political motives. Your views lag behind. This is the 21st century. Read more.
--Glengordon01 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, btw, as for the weird Apollo comment of yours, actually...
  • Greek Apollo comes from Hittite Appaliunas, one of the three gods recorded on a treaty at Troy dating to around 1300 BCE. (Read this abstract)
This then brings one to the realization that there was an ancient symbolic connection between lions and the sun -- The name Appaliunas appears to mean "Father Lion"; the same connections being in Biblical Samson whose "mane" is cut by Delilah and whose name derives from Semitic
  • šamš- "sun"; present also in underlying motifs demonstrated in Greek Heracles). So yes, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about and Apollo was indeed a sun god even before the Classical Greeks came into being as we know them, probably once worshipped all over Western Turkey and Syria in one form or another during the era when the Minoans were still around. :::::--Glengordon01 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so we can't use Italic words such as Ausel and Ausarn to compare with the Etruscan word Usil, despite being in the same region, times and cultural influences, but we CAN use a Hittite word (which is IE) to link with Samson and Semitic words????????????
And your linking of various myths (Samson and Apollo) is arbitary and absolutely unprovable. If the argument depends upon these unprovable assertions, then it collapses.
And one last thing; it is utterly irrelevant if the Hittites viewed Apollo as a solar god, the fact is that the early Greeks didn't until the 5th century bce.
-- User:PaganSocialist
Sign your comments, PaganSocialist.
You say: "Ok, so we can't use Italic words such as Ausel and Ausarn to compare with the Etruscan word Usil, despite being in the same region, times and cultural influences, but we CAN use a Hittite word (which is IE) to link with Samson and Semitic words????????????"
First, using twelve question marks doesn't speak well for your emotional stability. Second of all, since you've apparently not read anything concerning Apollo's etymological link to Hittite Apaliunas (hard to miss) you're going to first have to catch up before you can speak on it. Read for example, [1] (p.32). Thanks, bubbye now.
Oh dear, so not only are you the worlds greatest linguist that has ever lived, your a guru on psychology now are we? Aspergers is a curse I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
--Glengordon01 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Usil's status as a sun god is also absolutely proven by the mirror showing him, named as USIL, with Thesan and Nethuns dating from the 4th century bce. Usil is shown radiate and also holding a bow, an overt allusion to Apollo. This may be due to a possible confusion between Helios and Apollo in the mind of the Etruscan artist. As Apollo was seen as a sun god from the 5th century bce onwards in Greece what would this tell you? USIL WAS SEEN AS A SUN GOD. This article should immediately be suspended, someone's pet theories have been used as a fact despite the primary evidence blowing this claim away.
-- User talk:
The least you can do is sign your comment, Mr. Anonymous Sigh, I've signed it for you.
The mirror proves nothing. I'm well aware of that mirror and you're confusing facts with made-up fantasies. I go by the language as attested in thousands of inscriptions that have been found, not shakey interpretations of a mirror. It doesn't matter who made-up their "pet theories" or how many times it was published; a theory is to be established by logic, not supposition. Massimo Pallottino published in The Etruscans (1975) that usil meant "sun" based randomly on "Sabine ausel-" (p.233) and yet he also mistranslated a long list of other words that are provably so by the ignorance he displayed of Etruscan grammar and a little thing called "cross-reference". His own TLE (Testimonia Linguae Etruscae) proves him wrong on a number of counts whereby one translation of his will check out but when applied to another inscription is complete gobbleygook. Want an example?
Sufficed to say, the sun shines at dusk just as it does at dawn so radiating light from "Usil" says nothing about whether the word means "Sun" or something else, like "evening". The bow is equally the symbol of Apollo's twin sister, Diana, huntress goddess of night. Did you not know that? Look at the picture of Diana in Wikipedia and tell me what on earth you think she's doing with the arrows on her back if only Apollo dons this armament? Centaurs and Eros also have bows. It's such a popular motif in Greco-Roman mythology. So what?
In the end then, you're merely assuming that Usil *must* be related somehow to Apollo because you were babyfed a "Sabine folk etymology" in some book. It's circular reasoning whether you're astute enough as a reader to question what you read or not. The "pet theory" in this case is whenever an idle belief of a big name supplants careful logical reasoning. In this case, unless there are further facts that actually support this *interpretation* of the mirror, there's nothing to assert here other than that Usil being a priori the "sun" is a (pet-)theory like any other. --Glengordon01 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Plus, now having a diametric opposition on that mirror between Thesan "dawn" and Usil "evening" (rather than mistranslating Usil as "sun"), it now fully shows us its true meaning. The emphasis of evening here is symbolic of aging and death. The association between "day" and "age" was already popular in classic times. Remember the famous riddle of the Sphinx: What has three legs at dusk? A man (when old and with cane). Dusk then is symbolic of old age and death. Misinterpreting "Usil" as "sun" is only holding us back. --Glengordon01 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You people don't seem to understand anything unless I pablumize everything in jotnotes, eh? Sigh. Let's try this again...
Summary of facts showing why Etruscan usil **provably** cannot mean "sun"
  1. Massimo Pallottino claims on page 233 of The Etruscans (1975) that usil = "sun".
  2. Pallottino also asserts that usli and uslane are indeed derivatives of usil on the same page.
  3. usli is attested at LL 7.xiii.
  4. uslane-c is found at LL 5.xxi.
  5. Everyone on Wikipedia already has mentioned the undeclined form usil attested on mirrors.
  6. Pallottino says that -c is a conjunctive (page 223), leaving a stem uslane in LL 5.xxi.
  7. Pallottino also claims suffixes -i or -e, -thi and eri probably possess instrumental, locative and dative functions (p.215), a view later elaborated upon by Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante.
  8. If Pallottino interprets thesan as "morning" (page 228), thesane must mean "in the morning" because it's a locative.
  9. If thesane is a locative, surely uslane-c immediately following it is a locative too.
  10. Hence the passage at LL 5.xxi can only sensibly read: "in the morning and in the X".
  11. The simpler form usli must also be a locative in -i by way of Pallottino's own published claims.
Now listen up, my children:
  1. If usil means "sun" as he claims, both usli and uslane must mean "in, at, with or to the sun".
  2. No locative preposition here manages to avoid complete nonsense when applying Pallottino's "theories".
  3. Ergo, either the Etruscan language and its people are wrong, or Massimo Pallottino is wrong.
I vote the latter: Pallottino is full of crap; burn the sacred cows; Pallottino is full of crap. Since anybody that paid attention to what I just said now understands for themselves based on the above incontestable facts why "usil" ***CANNOT*** mean "the sun" EVER, it then must mean something else, whether this "something" is published or not. If Wikipedians can't handle that, tough. It's reality.
I already showed you all a valid candidate: "evening". No matter what I think, "sun" is flat-out wrong. Now we can properly translate **all** the inscriptions without contradictions, without gobblygook, without the nonsense but we need to burn these damn sacred cows first:
  • LL 5.xxi : Cis-um θesane uslane-c mlaχe. "And the three [things] are blessed in the morning and in the evening." (Pallottino translated cis-um as "on the 3rd" which also is probably nonsense now that I'm reading the Liber Linteus as a whole for myself and understanding the grammatical nuances of the genitive case.)
And I said above that the mirror of Thesan and Usil is most sensible only when we understand them to be the pairs "Morning" and "Evening" with the metaphor of Evening naturally emphasized in a funerary context. So if you Jebediahs out there still don't understand why Pallottino's interpretation is fraudulent and why what I'm saying is not just a "pet theory", I can't simplify it any more for you. --Glengordon01 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a ridiculously large way of saying absolutely nothing. You want your theory to be accepted, publish! If not, this is original research which absolutely no-one else subscribes to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tinia is not "short for" Tins[edit]

Tinia ends in the collective suffix -ia, so the word tinia literally means "suns" or "days". This name thus implies a function of "Father Time", a deity governing the passage of time (like Cronos), added to his general function of being the head of the pantheon (like Roman Jupiter & Greek Zeus). On the other hand, the other form Tinś is marked with a male honorative suffix -iś. Since usil doesn't mean "sun" as I explained above, the true sun god is probably in fact Tinś and in this way is similar in power and scope to Egyptian Ra.


There is no such spelling of Heracles in Etruscan for an obvious fact that Etruscan lacks "o"!! And more obviously, the Etruscan name was based upon the Greek name Hēraklēs and the name is securely of Greek origin. So it begs the question why anyone would stick an "o" in there unless they're really daft. Oh I'm sorry, that was so non-Wikipedia POV of me. Well, don't care, screw it. Somebody was a dumbass and we need to talk about it ;) --Glengordon01 08:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Horta, made-up horse doodoo?[edit]

Where do people get this nonsense? Seriously. Where is **Horta attested? It's connection with Latin hortus is suspect considering that Latin and Etruscan are unrelated languages. So, doesn't that make *Horta a Latin deity and if so, why are we listing it here?! Ugh. If it's based on some cockamamey story of etymological folktales, whether modern or classical, we need to mark it in a seperate category with a story attached explaining its source. What's the point in having a "Wikipedia" if we're simply going to include everything into one big pile of nonsensical trash? --Glengordon01 08:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cautha, how many suns does the sky have??[edit]

In case no one has noticed it yet, there are way to many suns in the Etruscan pantheon and nobody is quite certain what sex the sun is either! Very different from every other culture's religion of that time. The Egyptians had Ra and it was positively male. I've never seen Ra with boobs, excuse my terminology ;) Greeks had Apollo, again quite male. So why can't the Etruscans make up their minds? Well, I'm thinkin' that it's the incompetent Etruscanologists again, having a good laugh at us minion Wicca-brainwashed masses who buy into all of their self-contradictory crap. As of yet, I'm not sure what Cauθa truly is and -θa does indeed mark female names. However, she ain't the sun. I mean, who ever heard of a male sun giving birth to a daughter... who is also the sun but female. Don't alarm bells ring off in anyone else's heads??? Is everyone doped up on Ritalin and Paxil now? C'mon, people. Let's get real. --Glengordon01 09:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. Catha is not a solar deity. -- Anonymous

Darn, don't forget to sign your name by pressing the "signature icon" above the textarea when you send in your comment, Anonymous :) When some people don't signature what they write, other readers may get confused and attribute comments to the wrong people, dankeschön. --Glengordon01 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Losna, goddess of idiocy and an inability to research[edit]

What horror. Long story short: The Latin name for "moon" is lunā from earlier lucnā with a "c" which is securely traced to *lukneh2 < Indo-European *leuk- "to be bright". Some idiots have obviously misread the "c" as an "s". End of story. Now, the moral of said story is: Stop reading junky pseudo-pagan websites full of garbage and go to a library. Ask the librarian to help you, for pete's sakes! For the love of Athena, help me get off this planet. --Glengordon01 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Vicare, how can I believe you now?[edit]

Just for the benefit of doubt, despite all the inaccuracies I've discovered above, can someone please tell me where *Vicare is known from a single Etruscan text? --Glengordon01 09:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I will have to answer my own question. I personally want to see PRIMARY sources (if not on Wikipedia, then for myself because I want to know this topic _in-depth_). Quoting books which quote books which quote books is like a game of telephone and doesn't help anyone. In this case, a primary source is a photo of the inscription on the artifact itself. If I smell just a hint of "information obfuscation", I get angry. I get angry for the coming generation lulled by a false sense of security that the Information Age will bring us an abundance of knowledge rather than a digimaoist distortion of it. It turns out that vikare (notice that it's written "k", not "c"!) is inscribed on a golden bulla along with taitle and located in the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, USA. The picture of the artifact is here but conveniently the inscription is hidden from online perusal ("information obfuscation" yet again) and we're all expected to fly to Maryland at our own expense, I suppose. We can be comforted knowing that admission is free once we lowly plebeians abandon our busy 9-to-5 and allocate enough funds from our half-empty pockets to make a physical pilgrimage there and wrestle back our stolen history from academic elitists who to this day underuse the capabilities of the internet for information sharing. And that's the end of my rant :) --Glengordon01 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alpan, a whole lotta Love[edit]

While I recognize the word, I don't recognize it as a name of a god. The tricky thing is that, if we let our imagination get the better of us, we can abstractify gods out of every mundane word of a language. To help me believe, I'd like to see where a documented image of Alpan created by Etruscans anywhere with his name of *Alpan clearly identifying him. Since we can already confirm the existance of Turan as the goddess of Love, equaled to Aphrodite, we have some more redundancy to work out in the Etruscan pantheon. First multiple Suns and now multiple Loves! --Glengordon01 10:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cel and Cilens, two different things[edit]

What? You say you don't believe me? All you have to do is take a looky at the Piacenza Liver to know that it's wrong. There, both Cel and Cilens are mentioned. They are just not the same thing. --Glengordon01 10:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Evan is bullsh*t and never existed[edit]

I have never read of such a thing, then again, I veer clear away from books by Mayani or his ilk, kooks out to make a quick buck on paganism or politics instead of devoting themselves to logic. If the library has nothing on **Evan, the only thing retrievable online is from wishy-washy websites like [[2]] where we are told confidently: "Evan's name means 'Time', and is related to Etruscan evi, 'duration or eternity';" Only one problem. There is no such word *evi in Etruscan!! The word for "age" is avil with an "l". In fact, having studied languages all my life, I know what this nonsense is very loosely based on: Latin aevum "age". It lingers from books made by pro-Italic Etruscanologists, even though their whole theory of a hypothetical Latin-Etruscan relationship is now very demonstratably false. Why won't these idiotic ideas die? It's like the meme that wouldn't die! Hehe. Yet, as anyone that has properly studied both Etruscan and Latin knows, the two languages are unrelated and have two distinct sets of vocabulary. So we can be certain that the author of said website, along with the entire group of wishywashies who believe that this deity ever existed without even a shred of _physical, documented proof_, choose collectively to live in a post-nuclear dark age. They probably want to suck us all in too but personally I'm not up for it. Say no to post-nuclear dark ages. --Glengordon01 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You should list Evan (mythology) on WP:AFD (see WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion). If it is deleted then remove from here etc. Thanks/wangi 10:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks a lot. Hmm, now I wonder if someone took off the Tuscania Dice entry in similar fashion... grrr. The Tuscania Dice is used as proof of a certain order for Etruscan numerals so it's strange to not have an entry on it. I could swear it was there a minute ago. Anyone know what happened to it? Was anyone watching it? Funny stuff. Guess you have to laugh. --Glengordon01 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a follow-up here. It turns out Evan is mentioned in a few books like Roman and European Mythologies by Yves Bonnefoy. Nonetheless, we're only told here that there's nothing known about this deity, and further it appears that the term evan which accompanies certain figures (whose pictures I have yet to see!!! ugh!) is merely assumed to be a deity name. Outside of this so-called evidence, there is nothing in actual Etruscan texts, nor in classical Greek or Roman sources. So, I suppose I can feel empathy to those that say that Evan is "sourced", but then again, what good is being sourced if your source is a fragile house of cards? --Glengordon01 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're familiar with Lambrechts' online database of Etruscan mirrors. This mirror is one of a few (though the others have not yet been organized in CSEs yet, and therefore are not on Lambrechts...if you're really adamant about this, you could flip through Gerhard to find the others) with a figure labelled as Evan. If you are to argue that Evan is not the character's name, you would need to provide convincing evidence why we should not take this label to be the figure's name. --Flareserif 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"If you are to argue that Evan is not the character's name..." No, I argue against the a baseless assumption that Evan is a valid deity in the Etruscan pantheon. But voilà, by your own admission you call the nebulous entity a "character" rather than "deity" because you yourself know that nothing has been proven whatsoever that he/she was worshipped by Etruscans. I suggest that you reexamine that mirror, and preferably find a photo of it rather than relying on loosely sketched facsimiles (ie. do you know what a secondary source is and why it's poor research?). Thanks a bunch. --Glengordon01 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
To add, here's a quote from Bryn Mawr Classical Review concerning "Evan" and other entities of that ilk [3]: "The mysterious figures ALPAN, ACHVIZR, LEINTH, and EVAN change sexes with startling ease." The so-called "interchanging" of gender is overblown garbage that masks the real situation: Not all labeled personnages in Etruscan art are deities, real people, or even mythic heroes. Some represent abstract concepts personified. Precisely the same thing we see in Greek and Roman art (eg. click here) but surprisingly the archaeologists haven't clued in yet because fantasy and made-up pantheons are more marketable than the drier truth... that Evan is a non-existent deity in the true sense of the word and utter b.s. just as I stated all along. You may as well call every abstract concept from Anger to Misogyny as a "deity" and make this half-assed article the length of a full roll of toilet paper then. --Glengordon01 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I made no argument as to the identity of Evan. I was merely directing you toward a picture and identification of Evan. I am aware that this is a drawing rather than a photo of the mirror itself, but it will no doubt aid you in tracking one down. --Flareserif (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Februus, ain't Etruscan[edit]

It's Roman, not Etruscan. Romans are a seperate people. The Etruscan language doesn't even have a "b" sound so what then is this supposedly Etruscan name based on? Are we supposed to assume something imaginary like **fepru? I don't think so. Bunch of crap! I eradicated it. --Glengordon01 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiur, more nutty pagan wordgames[edit]

The word is tiur **always** with an "r". The word is without a doubt "moon" or "month". It is used to specify the date of various events countless times on the Liber Linteus, and again, always with "r". Don't slice off sounds just because they don't fit into your narrow pet-theories, people! So the twat who thought then that **tiu(r) was linked to the Anglo-Saxon god Tiw has hopefully gotten meds for his affliction. --Glengordon01 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's me, Glen again. I want to update the above information since I keep on learning more and more about the complex web of gaffes in Etruscan-related literature (which I now devote to a blog since Wikipedia is generally too narrow-minded and "angry" to understand the complex problems inherent in this field).

This "tiu" mythology seems to either be invented or at the very least promoted by Massimo Pallottino in The Etruscans (1975), page 233 in his _tentative_ vocabulary list. I say tentative because almost every second word therein was lovingly given a question mark next to it by Pallottino himself. Of course, since ol' Massimo didn't respect readers enough, his purported vocabulary entirely lacks references to artifacts in which these supposed words exist. It's entirely possible that the error is even older but I'm more interested in historical linguistics, not historical research errors.--Glengordon01 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thufltha becomes Thuflthas in the genitive[edit]

There seems to be confusion about Etruscan grammar. There were two suffixes for the genitive case, -s and -l. The Etruscan genitive case helped to express aspects of possession (possessive) or origin of movement (ablative), sometimes even to signal the agent of action (agentive). When we add -s to the name and get Θufltha, it means "of/belonging to/from Thufltha". Therefore, we can't say that "Thufltha" and "Thuflthas" are equivalent names for this deity. The name is **only** Thufltha in the end. --Glengordon01 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nortia, source should be explicit[edit]

If I recall, I remember finding the source of "Nortia" not from any existing Etruscan inscriptions, but from a Roman author recounting the story of priests and a wall-nailing ritual to mark the passage of time. It would be nice if I could remember what author spoke of this. Does anyone know which author this is from? It would be helpful to all of us to mention when sources are unverified hearsay from Roman/Greek classical authors, and when they are **direct** evidence in inscriptions. It's important to disambiguate this because naturally authors can't be trusted as easily as physical texts in the Etruscan language. --Glengordon01 11:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here we are. Gotta do it yourself, I always say. The source of the story of Nortia is specifically Livy vii. 3. 7. --Glengordon01 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cel, father AND mother??[edit]

Stated on this page was "Rendered either Ati Cel ('Father Earth') or Apa Cel ('Mother Earth')." I object. Pick one. Where is this attested? Oh yes, it must be in one of Mayani's dreadful books. Sorry, that freak doesn't count as a scholar. So where else? --Glengordon01 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trojans into Italy?[edit]

Article at "Charun" mentions that Charun was replaced by Greek Charon when Trojans entered Italy. I though that that was more or less a myth (popularised in the Aeneid). --T@nn

It's a lie.

  • In Greek, Tyrrhēnos or Tyrsēnos means "Etruscan", while "Trojan" should be Troikos (from Troia "Troy"). In Latin, Tuscus or Etruscus is "Etruscan" whereas Troianus is "Trojan". They are clearly distinct.
  • It was the Tyrrhēnoi (Etruscans) that entered Italy from Lydia (in SW Turkey), not the Trojans of Troy (in NW Turkey), as stated by Herodotus in Histories.
  • Finally, since Charōn Χάρων) means "brightness" in Greek, Etruscan Charun is already a Greek loan. Charun replaced by Charon?? Egad, total nonsense since we can see that Charun is already a Hellenic import! The only reason why Etruscans replaced Greek "omega" with "u" is simply because the Etruscan language lacks "o" as well as any long vowels that Greek has. See Etruscan language for details.

--Glengordon01 09:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Charun, that ain't a hammer in his pocket[edit]

I found yet another spurious claim here. This time it's about how Charun "kills people" with his hammer. Look it, people, yo'll are gonna have to start verifying what you're editing! Total garbage as far as I'm concerned.

I had never thought much before about Charun's hammer, quite frankly, but upon careful reflection there's no doubt that the "hammer" is in fact a labrys, a very ancient symbolism with ties to Greece, the Aegean and Turkey. Charun isn't killing anyone and no artifacts I know of show this. I defy anyone to cough up a **tangible Etruscan artifact** that shows this claim is not yet another internet legend. --Glengordon01 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon whose careful reflection? Yours? Who cares! --Scottandrewhutchins 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Civility --Glengordon01 01:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle? -Silence 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And what value does your input have other than to fuel conflict? Stick to Etruscan, not pots nor kettles. --Glengordon01 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Glen Gordon, I suggest you look at or You are the most amazing poster I have ever seen on Wiki. You accept no counter-arguments, believe everyone has overlooked everything regarding until your uber-genius discovered it and believe that linguistics alone is the key to ancient history (news flash: it isn't!) You have provided absolutely nothing of value to this page whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Vanth, inhaling good demons, eh?[edit]

Seriously, this is nonsense. How could this possibly be in evidence? I'm taking this out and if anyone can provide a reputable source of this claim, they will win a virtual can of tuna. --Glengordon01 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Semla link[edit]

Semla, in the Etruscan deity list, links to a discussion of a Scandinavian type of pastry. --T@nn

Hahaha, how funny and yet... sad. I added links to all the names but evidently we discovered an easter egg surprise. Thanks for noticing. Semla seems to exist on a mirror of the 4th century BCE with "Phuphluns" and "Apulu" so we know it's not made up at least. So I guess that means that these Swedish tarts will have to move over to make room for the Etruscans. I think I know how ;) --Glengordon01 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There, that pesky vinatarta won't bother you now, hehe. Shockingly there is no entry for the delicious and vastly more popular vinatarta as I write this. --Glengordon01 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cel link[edit]

This link leads to an article about celluloid. --T@nn

Wow, thanks T@nn. Haha, one nevers know what Wikipedia will turn up if one adds links blindly <:) Guess we need to add another link because Cel is listed on the Piacenza Liver artifact. What?? How is there is no link to the famous Piacenza Liver artifact?? Ugh, well anyways, you can learn more on Haruspex about that artifact... Oh dear: "The practice of haruspicy, the name for this kind of divination, was said to have originated among the ancient Etruscans." More nonsense, I can see this is gonna be a long night of revisions again :P --Glengordon01 02:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, y'know. Having a link to Cel or Celu is going to be a problem because there isn't much to say about her... hmmm. Maybe we'll just take the link out for now. --Glengordon01 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to rename as Celu, just so you all know, because this is the older asyncopated form as found on the Liber Linteus: celu-cn "this earth" in the accusative case. On the Piacenza liver, we see Cels (for earlier *Celus) in the genitive case. --Glengordon01 02:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Turan link[edit]

I perused for myself some of the links. I found another. Apparently Turan and Turan (mythology) are different things entirely. --Glengordon01 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tuchulcha, bearded man or bearded woman?[edit]


Notice muscular arms and beard. Is it a She-hulk? Don't think so. It's positively male without any shred of doubt.

Notice the beard again. Still positively male. --Glengordon01 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not Tuchulcha. All sources I have found (de Grummond, Richardson, Barker & Rasmussen)say that the picture below is the only surviving image. This appears to be Charun. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with de Grummond and Richardson that she appears to have breasts. What you're seeing as beard I'm seeing as neck, particularly of a figure desrcibed as having a head like both a donkey and a vulture. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, that's funny. And you seem to think that de Grummond and Richardson speak for everyone. The hair strands are quite visible and undeniable in the murals. Other sites say the same thing, that he has a beard.--Glengordon01 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When hair strands are on a creature with an animal's face, it does not follow that it is necessarily a "beard" and thus male. There appears to be hair all over the creature's head, except where the beak is. The head looks like it is fully that of a donkey, with the beak solely taking up the specifically nasal portion of the snout, while not the mouth and jaw.--Scottandrewhutchins 06:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Erh... ??? Well there's hair all over my head too. Now I can't speak for you, but I've successfully gone through puberty. So by your definition, because I have "hair all over my head", I must not be male afterall. Hahaha. Your logic, sir, is impeccable. Continue the great work.

I guess I'm an idealist when I expect an encyclopedia entry to make rational sense and not insult the reader. --Glengordon01 10:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Well well...

To both parties:

  1. Try to calm yourselves. Take a break of a few days and then return here.
  2. There is no need of Personal Attacks here, we're discussing contents, not persons - see WP:PA.
  3. I've submitted a Request for Comment for the content, so somebody not involved in this dispute can help me with the contents, because my knowledge of the matter is very low.
  4. I'll try to mediate this case informally, I hope we can settle down everything with an informal process of mediation. All right?

Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, proud admin ignorance is exactly what permitted the ludicrous references to Jeff Rovin and Encyclopedia of Monsters in the first place (made by ScottAndrewHutchins who admins were to have me believe was not a troll... ??). They too feigned ignorance and pretended that they lacked so much life experience that they couldn't distinguish a children's book from an academic one.

More ironically, these silly book references are precisely what Kattie90 wants to delete on another article (something I tried to do months ago but Scott and his admin goons wouldn't allow it, leading to a ludicrous section for low-grade authors as a desperate compromise). I support Kattie90 on that as long as (s)he doesn't nag and call others embarrassments but what are the admins doing to get rid of these trolls while new members try to change the articles for the better? Nothing. So all that's left is long ramblings on discussion pages about politics, never the subject at hand.

So far, I've only seen two kinds of admins:

  • The "pass-the-buck admins" ("I don't know anything; maybe another admin knows something; I shouldn't do anything.")
  • The "think-based-on-feelings" admins ("I hate you just because, so I'm going to make your life a living hell because I can.")

When the "I strive to learn a subject I'm unfamiliar with in order to do my job effectively" admins come by, please wake me up for the momentous occasion. By then, humans will be extinct and replaced by cockroaches so this theoretical admin will no doubt have six legs. I will not return for blood vengeance as long as nameless trolls like Filonemonk and any other petty people shooting ad hominems based on spelling or what-not don't recur. If you fools want me back, please bug me more and attack me personally with vicious slander as Wikipedia always does against all of its contributing members. Don't poke the bear.

And now a public service announcement: "The Problem with Wikipedia - II" --Glengordon01 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya glengordon. I just have a couple of passing comments now that I am getting more experience on Wikipedia. First of all, the admins represent the Wikipolice. Without them what do you suppose this encyclopedia would be? Not at all an encyclopedia. So, it is a necessary evil. I know they have their limitations and faults. The same can be said of any "police." I don't know of any solution yet to the police paradox, of asking persons to enforce our morals who are no more moral than we. Too bad we are incapable of policing ourselves, except possibly for a few saints. Second, I read the article you linked above. It is not a new argument. Here again it is paradoxical. The "experts" can be just as ignorant and stubborn as the rest of us, but they use their supposed "expertise" as a bully pulpit. There is something innately wrong with delegating all our responsibilities, intellectual or other, to "experts." Who is to blame if they fail? On the other hand we cannot do without specialization of labor, which "expertise" is. I don't know of any solution to this paradox, either. You overwhelm us with insoluble paradoxes. I would say, the best thing is to learn the art of cool debate. If I did not think you were worth addressing I would not address you. Don't lose hope, which looks before and not behind.Dave 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Time for a split already[edit]

I've been working on this list of mythological characters and I agree a list would be nice. One has to be really careful to get it right however so I've been relying on what the professionals say. It needs work of that sort. Also, I notice the various articles linked in contain duplicate or near duplicate material. The solution it seems to me is that all interpretation belongs in the associated aticle. Also there were no citations so I've been putting them in, so far almost exclusively from the Bonfante's dictionary. I do cross-check with Pallottino. I notice also that much of it is speculation filled in by the author. Thou shalt not speculate in an encyclopedia. Anything you could say here has been said by somebody, but as I say that material belongs in the linked articles. I doubt the author(s) realized the magnitude of this task. It's a pretty big list. I agree we do need it though so what I propose is to break it out into a separate article. There are a good many "list" articles on Wikipedia. By the way the Bonfantes' huge list is a condensation from the even huger material they looked at. Etruria was not built in a day. So let me know if you have any serious objection to breaking out the list and I will work on it while I wait, adding items, correcting the Greek, Latin, Etruscan and English errors, and removing the speculations, and looking for relevant citations. I considered 2-column, but I don't think so. One column takes up the whole page.Dave 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seem to disagree I'm going to go ahead and split the huge list off to its own article. A shorter list would of course be appropriate here. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet speculations[edit]

After working with this for a while I think I see what is happening. There are a lot of people anxious to do original work in this field but they aren't trained in it. I will call this the Ignatius Donneley or Atlantis syndrome. This is what you would expect, as the Etruscan religion emphasized prophecy and divination. (Maybe they vanished in a puff of smoke). I would say, they are exploiting the cultic, magical, superstitious side of the thing, they want to get their name and work before the public, and they can afford to put up their own websites. Most of their work is highly speculative.

I would certainly not rely on most of the Internet glossaries. What happens is, they all steal from each other, round Robin, and as no one has a foundation in serious scholarship, the baloney gets passed around. Beware Internet sources in this field (but there are always good ones of course). The main common mistake is making assumptions to fill in what you do not know. If it isn't known, it isn't known, and your assumption does not "know" it by fiat.

One wrong path is to view mythological characters as the late pagan writers did, a set character with set attributes, and all you have to do is identify it. A divinity can appear in any form at any time. It does not have to comply with any set image. A second wrong path is, once you have made the wrong identification, to attribute the attributes of the wrong identity to the wrongly identified deity. This is the source of the solar baloney noted above and also the goddess of death baloney. Have you noticed that? Too many goddesses of death. I know Greek and Latin names were used a lot by the Etruscans. However, there is no one-to-one correspondance. There was no Etruscan god of war, Martis. The Romans took an Etruscan name and made Mars out of it. There are also too many gods of war. The Etruscans did not have a native pantheon or roster of fixed gods worked up in literature. Anything in that direction is on a Greek template.

And last but not least are the amateur decipherers who want to make the Etruscan word say what they think it says in their candidate for "decipherment". Etruscan does not need any decipherment. With a few more bilinguals and long texts the issue will lose relevance as we will be able to read Etruscan. Even the experts say the bulk of Etruscan material is still under the ground.

So I would say as others have said in this discussion personal research is a sine qua non of any work you do or plan to do on the Etruscans on Wikipedia. The speculators heve put so much baloney on there now it will take some time to straighten it all out.Dave 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List format[edit]

You know, I think I like the list format better than the table here. Ordinarily I like tables but the list seems more attractive and easier to use (once all the speculation is out of it).Dave 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

````I like discussion about:USIL.God? NOT AT ALL.Somebody long ago made mistake translating Etruscan words freely and ilogically.A lot of followers are trying to put our fellow Etruscans aside.ETRUSCANS have81.18.60.166 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) founded modern Europe,they were and are (Indo)Europeans.Their language is our laguage,fact is we do not want to understand how to read and how to translate, Goran

Revert these[edit]


[5]. [6].Revert these removals.Why was everything removed?Megistias (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone revertMegistias (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Finish the game![edit]

I worked on this almost 2 years ago. It was not in good shape then and hasn't improved since then. I do notice, however, certain trends have been started. First, someone hates the concept of Etruscan "religion" and is removing all mention of it. They are tagging all presentation of "religion". To you I say, that is a vain effort. This is religion - polytheism no doubt. Fine, you are not a polytheist. Your types had their day with the Christian fathers of late antiquity. Monotheists don't need you to defend them. I'm putting back the religion concept, regardless of what you may think of polytheism. We previous writers left an opening for you - we failed to put in the footnotes. There are no lack of references, believe me. The idea is to treat these philosophies and religions with objectivity; otherwise, there is no sense in even bothering; we shall never get along. However, it does not bother me that there is an article only on Etruscan mythology and not on Etruscan religion, as it is often the custom to discuss Roman and Greek religion under mythology. No religion can do without its mythology, I don't care what it is. If you think you don't have any mythology, maybe you should work on Wikipedia more often. I will just put religion under mythology (gradually).

Second, the article originally had a list of Etruscan mythical and legendary characters. In your explorations of the nature of religion, whoever you are, you decided to break out the list from the article, then you decided to break out the Greek from the Etruscan. That is not an entirely valid approach as the Etruscans turned Greek figures into Etruscan and Roman ones and vice versa. However, it is possible, and someone might want a list of core Etruscan figures. I can see that so I am not going to oppose it. BUT - you didn't finish the job! So now we have the same material repeated in three different articles. At this point I am inclined to help you finish the game. That means I will be doing deletions and moving stuff around. Don't get excited. From what I can see the whole thing bogged down in controversy half way through and now is just sitting there. I shall give reasons for whatever I do. Let's finish the game. Pitch in or fold.Dave (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs some heavy duty copy editing[edit]

I'll try and put a copy edit tag on it soon. It's an important article, needs clean-up badly.--LeValley 02:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

the "too much jargon" template[edit]

I tried finding a template more directly saying "simplify the text" but this was the closest one I could find. Anyway:

I consider myself educated and with a fair grasp of the English language, but I didn't get two sentences into this article before I was completely lost. What's a "diachronically continuous population"? The term "floruit" goes unexplained.

To me this tells me the article needs to be rewritten. Simplified as in "using less fancy words", at least in the introduction.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Diachronically originates from Greek diachronic ("occurring or changing along with time") and in this case indicates there is significant continuity between the historic populations of the area. Floruit is Latin for "he/she flourished". For example X culture flourished from the 10th to the 12th century. Neither is particularly fancy. Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not scared of big words, but I agree with CapnZapp: "diachronically" is an extraordinarily pretentious word to use in the first sentence of an article on Etruscan mythology aimed at a general readership. Floruit can be linked (and now has been). The fact that you and I know Greek and Latin and can define them and provide etymologies doesn't mean they're readily accessible to WP's users. However, a bigger problem is that if a person encountered the first paragraph here out of context, you'd think it introduced an article on Etruscan civilization or the Etruscans — it's supposed to be about 'mythology.' See WP:LEDE. The topic of the article is supposed to be made explicit by a bold phrase, customarily in the first sentence, thus providing a focus. I might argue, however, that this article is misnamed, and ought to be called Etruscan religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"... in this case indicates there is significant continuity between the historic populations of the area". This doesn't clarify a lot to me. What would be a discontinuous population? Continuity can mean a lot of different things in different subjects - and I don't know any meaning that works here. If the "diachronically continuous" remark makes any sense at all, it badly needs clarification. If it doesn't, it should be removed. In any case, it doesn't appear very relevant in sentence 1 of the article. Drictelt (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper redirection[edit]

Ani (mythology) shouldn't direct you to this page, but to Ani (Etruscan God). Michael! (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Will fix this. Actually, there is a confusing stub on the deity, so that's probably the place to direct attention now. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Babylonian 'baru' the Etruscan 'maru'?[edit]

The babylonian haruspex who divined by the liver was called a baru. one of the Etruscan words for priest who divined by the liver was 'maru'. Could they be linked? Certain Etruscan name forms seem to indicate a possible link with Akkadian or Sumerian. Maybe they were refugees or settlers from Babylon who came to italy via Lemnos (based on Lemnian language links and their patheon). ??who knows. It may be a fruitful avenue of enquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this page called Etruscan mythology?[edit]

Dreading to open a can of worms here, I'm wondering why this page is called Etruscan mythology when it's really about their religion. An article on their mythology should cover things like stories of their gods and heoes, that is, myths. See Roman mythology.- Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)