Source: http://www.pittau.it/Etrusco/Studi/lingua_etrusca.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-19 19:38:36+00:00

Document:
Massimo Pittau - Sulla Lingua Etrusca
SULLA LINGUA ETRUSCA
e il fallimento filologico-linguistico
1) Prima “ovvietà” ignorata, trascurata e contraddetta dagli archeologi italiani: non c’è uomo di cultura che non sappia e non capisca che tra l’archeologia da una parte e la glottologia o linguistica comparata e storica dall’altra esiste un oceano di differenze sia in ordine all’oggetto di studio sia in ordine ai metodi adoperati. Pertanto ogni e qualsiasi intervento che un archeologo – in quanto tale - tenti di effettuare in ordine allo studio della lingua etrusca è del tutto illegittimo, velleitario e destinato al fallimento.
Dunque, il procedimento della “comparazione interna” fra gli 8.500 vocaboli etruschi conservati è stato in questi ultimi 70 anni applicato dagli archeologi, monopolizzatori della lingua etrusca, soltanto in misura assai ridotta. In maniera particolare essi si sono guardati bene dall’immettere nella “comparazione interna” anche il grande numero di antroponimi etruschi conservati (prenomi, gentilizi e soprannomi o lat. cognomina), del tutto convinti che questi non abbiano alcun valore ai fini della “decifrazione del significato” dei singoli vocaboli etruschi. E invece, nell’avere tralasciato di prendere in esame pure i numerosi antroponimi etruschi, gli archeologi - come mostrerò più avanti - hanno sbagliato e anche di grosso.
Nella “comparazione” che io prospetto fra gli 8.500 vocaboli etruschi posseduti ma sconosciuti e i 200 mila greci e latini posseduti e conosciuti, è già molto importante fermarsi a questo stadio, dato che spesso ci consente di “decifrare” o acquisire appunto il “significato” dei vocaboli etruschi. Ma nessun può imporre a un linguista di non procedere oltre, di non adoperare anche l’altro importante metodo della sua ricerca, il “metodo etimologico”. E nell’esempio fatto nessuno potrà proibire a un linguista di prospettare la tesi che i vocaboli etrusco Amphiles, Ampiles «maggio», «mese dei pàmpini», greco ámpelos «vite, vigna», lat. pampinus «pàmpino» e (proto)sardo s'ampilare «arrampicarsi anche della vite» “derivano”, uno indipendentemente dall’altro, da un vocabolo della viticoltura del “sostrato mediterraneo e preindoeuropeo”.
6) D’altra parte è un fatto che gli archeologi italiani in maniera unanime sostengono che per la lingua etrusca "non esiste alcun problema di decifrazione", in quanto essa sarebbe stata già "decifrata del tutto". Ma anche con questa loro tesi essi non si accorgono di avere un concetto molto improprio e in parte errato della "decifrazione linguistica".
Per una lingua antica di cui si abbiano soltanto documentazioni scritte, senza cioè alcun riscontro in lingue odierne, in effetti esistono due differenti "decifrazioni", o, meglio, due differenti gradi di decifrazione. Il primo consiste nel "decifrare le lettere alfabetiche” o grafemi, cioè nel riuscire a trasformarli in suoni orali o fonemi, cioè nel riuscire a pronunziarli; e questo primo grado di decifrazione di certo è stato già effettuato per la lingua etrusca, la quale, in virtù dell'uso che gli Etruschi facevano dell'alfabeto greco, è ormai quasi perfettamente e totalmente leggibile o pronunziabile. Ma la vera e più importante "decifrazione" viene dopo, quella per cui dai grafemi si passa a capire quale effettivamente sia il significato che essi portano e nascondono, quella decifrazione per cui dai "segni grafici" si riesce a passare ai rispettivi "significati fattuali o concettuali".
È chiaro che il vocabolo e il concetto di "decifrazione" trae origine dalla pratica dei messaggi segreti, che vengono criptati e trasmessi con "cifre". Ebbene, in un ufficio di decifrazione militare, in cui mi sono trovato a operare durante l'ultima guerra mondiale, il nostro primo compito era quello di riuscire a "captare" esattamente le "cifre" dei messaggi cifrati del nemico, ma la vera decifrazione di questi messaggi veniva da noi effettuata solamente dopo, quando da quelle cifre captate riuscivamo a passare al messaggio che esse portavano e nascondevano, quando cioè riuscivamo a passare dai segni cifrati ai rispettivi fatti o concetti significati e trasmessi.
7) Un’altra “ovvietà” ignorata e contraddetta dagli archeologi italiani è quella relativa alla scelta iniziale del materiale di studio. Non occorre grande esperienza di studi linguistici per sapere e comprendere che le iscrizioni di una lingua antica sconosciuta tanto più facilmente sono traducibili quanto più sono lunghe. Nelle iscrizioni lunghe infatti le possibilità sia della “comparazione interna” sia della “comparazione esterna” dei vocaboli sono molto più numerose che non nelle iscrizioni brevi. Oltre a ciò, nelle iscrizioni lunghe sono anche possibili gli emendamenti di eventuali errori dello scriba antico, mentre nelle iscrizioni brevi tali emendamenti sono quasi sempre impossibili. Inoltre nelle iscrizioni brevi – proprio per esigenza di brevità – si adoperano di frequente abbreviazioni, le quali spesso risultano indecifrabili perché fatte a casaccio da differenti scribi. E non bastando ciò, la scoperta della “falsità” di una iscrizione lunga è enormemente più facile della scoperta della “falsità” di una iscrizione breve.
Questa grave difficoltà costituita dal tipo di materiale linguistico etrusco conservatoci non si può né si deve negare, però c’era da effettuare in proposito una importante operazione, che invece non è stata neppure tentata dagli archeologi: è ben vero che gli antroponimi si presentano a una prima analisi come “opachi”, nel senso che indicano o “significano” all’ascoltatore o lettore soltanto singoli uomini e singole famiglie, però i veri linguisti sanno che, analizzati a dovere, anche gli antroponimi possono diventare “trasparenti”, nel senso che possono rivelare anche il loro originario “significato”. In origine infatti anche gli antroponimi erano altrettanti “appellativi”, costituiti quasi sempre da sostantivi o aggettivi sostantivati, pure al diminutivo o all’accrescitivo, i quali indicavano o un dato anagrafico oppure una caratteristica, fisica o morale, dell’individuo denominato. Ad esempio, i cognomi italiani Cremona, Ferrara e Verona in origine indicavano la provenienza di un famiglia da una di quelle città; i cognomi Bianchi, Neri e Rossi indicavano, col plurale di famiglia, che i rispettivi individui erano o “bianchi” o “neri, bruni” o “rossi” di carnagione; i cognomi Forti, Gagliardi , Onesti indicavano una qualità morale dei loro titolari; i cognomi Medici, Mercante, Ferrari ne indicavano la professione; il prenome etrusco Larth significava «comandante, principe» (Cicerone, Phil., 9.4; Livio, IV.17.1) e l’altro Velthur «avvoltoio», ecc, ecc.
Ebbene, nei lunghi e stretti contatti che gli Etruschi e i Romani ebbero soprattutto in epoca monarchica, è evidente e certo che siano intervenuti numerosi scambi di vocaboli fra le rispettive lingue e soprattutto di antroponimi. La qual cosa è stata luminosamente dimostrata dalla vecchia ma ancora importante e geniale opera di Wilhelm Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen (1904), il quale ha messo in evidenza una vasta corrispondenza di antroponimi latini con altrettanti etruschi. Nella mia recente opera Dizionario della Lingua Etrusca (Sassari 2005) ritengo di avere – in virtù dei successivi rinvenimenti di nuove iscrizioni etrusche - notevolmente allargato il numero di quelle corrispondenze, arrivando al numero di circa 1.600 antroponimi etruschi che corrispondono, in maniera più o meno sicura, ad altrettanti antroponimi latini.
Ma – come ho accennato prima - anche i gentilicia e i cognomina latini, oltre che il loro valore propriamente antroponomastico, ne hanno pure uno lessicale e ne ho tratto la conclusione che il valore lessicale degli antroponimi etruschi è quello stesso dei corrispondenti antroponimi latini. Dunque la “comparazione” e connessione fra gli antroponimi latini e quelli etruschi ha consentito di allargare fino a circa 1.600 il numero di vocaboli etruschi di cui, più o meno, conosciamo ormai anche il valore lessicale e semantico, di allargare cioè il numero di vocaboli etruschi di cui abbiamo, più o meno, decifrato il valore semantico o “significato” prima ignorato.
A questo proposito io aggiungo che pure la nota usanza religiosa e civica degli Etruschi, di indicare il passaggio di ogni anno con l'affissione di un chiodo nel tempio della dea Northia (Livio VII 3.7), induce a intendere che gli Etruschi avessero ancora la chiara memoria storica della data del loro arrivo in Italia, data che costituiva l'inizio di quella usanza e che ovviamente essi avevano grande cura di ricordare. Questa loro usanza invece non avrebbe avuto alcuna ragione di esistere, se fosse stato vero che gli Etruschi si trovavano in Italia da sempre.
12) A iniziare dal 1947, col suo libro L'origine degli Etruschi (Roma 1947), Massimo Pallottino, capo della scuola archeologica italiana, non ha più voluto che si parlasse della "origine degli Etruschi" e di fatto almeno qui in Italia non se ne è più parlato per numerosi decenni. Secondo lui, quello della "origine degli Etruschi" sarebbe un problema privo di senso, come lo sarebbe quello della "origine dei Francesi". L'ethnos etrusco - egli ha ragionato - è nato e si è sviluppato, cioè si è "formato" soltanto in Italia, proprio come la civiltà francese è nata e si è sviluppata, cioè "formata" soltanto in Gallia.
Questo concetto della "formazione della civiltà etrusca" avvenuta soltanto in Italia, analogo a quello della "formazione della civiltà francese" avvenuta soltanto in Francia, è stato un punto assolutamente fermo e indubitabile, il quale ha condizionato dal 1947 in poi quasi tutti gli studi relativi alla civiltà etrusca e perfino quelli relativi alla lingua etrusca. Eppure con un po' di attenzione si sarebbe potuto vedere che quel concetto di "formazione" aveva un suo punto debole: era sufficiente osservare che, pur concedendo che "la civiltà francese si è formata soltanto in Francia", niente vieta a uno studioso di mettersi il problema delle "origini" degli elementi che hanno contribuito alla formazione della civiltà francese, e precisamente il problema della "origine dell'elemento latino" che proveniva dall'Italia e il problema della "origine dell'elemento franco" che proveniva dalla Germania. In maniera analoga, pur concedendo che "la civiltà etrusca si è formata in Italia", niente vieta a uno studioso di mettersi il problema della "origine dell'elemento orientale" che è presente in maniera evidente e massiccia nella civiltà etrusca (addirittura è stato giustamente chiamato "l'Orientalizzante") e che proveniva dalla Lidia nell'Asia Minore.
In conseguenza di ciò la scuola archeologica italiana ha sempre insistito sulla perfetta continuità che si constaterebbe tra l'antica cultura villanoviana dell'Italia centrale e la successiva civiltà etrusca, mentre l'illustre storico francese della civiltà antica Jean Bérard (La Magna Grecia - storia delle colonie greche dell'Italia meridionale, Torino 1963, pg. 493) ha fatto osservare che "La civiltà etrusca dell'età storica si afferma in opposizione a quella villanoviana nel cui seno si sviluppa; e nulla è più diverso e contrastante dalle povere tombe a incinerazione del periodo villanoviano delle ricche camere funerarie del periodo etrusco vero e proprio".
D’altronde anche un altro illustre studioso francese, profondo conoscitore e illustratore della civiltà etrusca, Jacques Heurgon, ha sostenuto, sia pure in maniera molto diplomatica, la tesi dell’origine orientale degli Etruschi (cfr. La vie quotidienne chez les Étrusques, Paris 1961; Rome et la Méditerranée occidentale jusqu'aux guerres puniques, Paris 1969).
Eppure non sono pochi né poco autorevoli i glottologi che invece hanno sostenuto la tesi della indoeuropeità dell’etrusco: W. Corssen, S. Bugge, I. Thomopoulos, E. Vetter, A. Trombetti, E. Sapir, G. Buonamici, E. Goldmann, P. Kretschmer, F. Ribezzo, F. Schachermayr, A. Carnoy, V. I. Georgiev, W. M. Austin, R. W. Wescott, F. C. Woudhuizen, F. Bader, F. R. Adrados, ecc. ed a questa schiera si unisce anche l'autore del presente studio.
d) desinenza del participio presente etrusco -nth (AMINTH «Amante», CLEVANTH «offerente», NUNTHENTH «orante») uguale a quella -nt- del latino e del greco (LEGL § 124).
e) desinenza del preterito etrusco –ke, -ce uguale a quello greco –ke: etr. TURICE, TURUCE, TURCE, TURKE «donò, ha donato» da confrontare col greco dedórheke «donò, ha donato».
f) desinenza del locativo etrusco -t(e), -t(i), -th(e), -th(i) uguale a quello greco, anche se raro, óikothi «in casa», thyrhethi «alla porta, fuori», Ilióthi «in Ilio» (LEGL § 59).
15) Con una così lunga serie di “ovvietà” relative a specifiche competenze scientifiche, ad esatti procedimenti linguistici, - metodologici ed ermeneutici - ignorate, trascurate e contraddette, era logico e necessario che la scuola archeologica italiana, monopolizzando la lingua etrusca, finisse col determinare quello che indubbiamente è stato il più grande “fallimento filologico-linguistico” che ci sia mai stato in tutta la storia delle discipline filologiche e linguistiche, ad iniziare dalla filologia alessandrina fino al presente. E si tratta di un “fallimento” che va avanti ormai da 70 anni e neppure accenna a diminuire!
In questo preciso modo e per questi esatti motivi si spiega un fatto che nell'apparenza poteva finora riuscire del tutto inspiegabile: lingue antiche scoperte in tempi recenti e documentate con scarse e poco consistenti iscrizioni o brani di iscrizioni, nel giro di qualche decennio sono state dai linguisti decifrate, tradotte e classificate. È il caso delle seguenti lingue: sumero, ittito, hurritico, urartaico, elamitico, ugaritico, licio, lidio, frigio, ecc. Invece rispetto alla lingua etrusca, documentata da circa 11 mila iscrizioni e anche con testi abbastanza consistenti come il Liber linteus e la Tabula Capuana, i progressi ermeneutici e di studio effettuati dalla scuola archeologica italiana in questi ultimi decenni sono stati quasi impercettibili. L’enormità di questo “fallimento culturale” è proprio direttamente proporzionale al grande potere politico, organizzativo ed economico che gli archeologi italiani posseggono e di cui si servono ampiamente.
Oltre a ciò nelle case editrici gli archeologi sono anche in grado di bloccare e boicottare pubblicazioni che non siano di loro gradimento. Espongo un caso personale: un noto e importante editore di Firenze si era dichiarato disponibile e felice di pubblicare la mia opera Dizionario della Lingua Etrusca (Sassari 2005), che comprende analizzato e spesso tradotto l’intero patrimonio lessicale della lingua etrusca che è stato rinvenuto e pubblicato sino all’anno 2005; e si trattava del primo e unico vocabolario generale della lingua etrusca che esistesse. Di questo mio Dizionario della Lingua Etrusca Riccardo Ambrosini, professore di Linguistica nell’Università di Pisa, nonché Presidente della «Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere e Arti», nella quale mi aveva chiamato per tenere due conferenze, una sulla Tabula Cortonensis e l’altra appunto sul mio Dizionario, mi aveva scritto da San Lorenzo di Moriano in data 18.11.2005: «Carissimo Pittau, ho appena ricevuto il Tuo stupendo Dizionario della Lingua Etrusca e mi sono affrettato a leggerne alcune pagine che attraevano la mia immediata curiosità. Non posso non congratularmi con Te per la sapiente disposizione del materiale e per la prudenza di alcune proposte, che ben sottolinei nella chiarissima introduzione. (…) Complimenti vivissimi e, scusami una sentita invidia per questo Tuo magnifico lavoro, e, insieme con questi, i ringraziamenti più vivi e i saluti più cordiali. Tuo [firmato]». Senonché l’editore fiorentino fu dissuaso dal pubblicare quel mio Dizionario almeno da alcuni membri dell’”Istituto di Studi Etruschi ed Italici” di Firenze, scusandosi poi con me col dire che con quell’Istituto egli aveva rapporti continui ed organici...
Comincio col citare il caso del glottologo Marcello Durante, autore dell’importante studio Considerazioni intorno al problema della classificazione dell'etrusco - "Parte Prima" (in "Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici", VII, 1968, pgg. 7-60, nel quale connetteva la lingua etrusca con antiche lingue anatoliche e nel quale c'era l'annunzio di una successiva "Parte Seconda". Avendo un giorno chiesto al collega Durante quando sarebbe comparso il secondo studio da lui già preannunziato, mi rispose, molto amareggiato, che aveva rinunziato del tutto a quella sua idea dopo che aveva constatato la totale indifferenza con cui gli archeologi italiani avevano accolto il suo primo studio...
E assoluta indifferenza hanno manifestato gli archeologi italiani per uno studio di un altro glottologo dell’Università di Pavia, specialista in lingue anatoliche, Onofrio Carruba, L'origine degli Etruschi: il problema della lingua (Atti VI Convegno Internazionale di Linguisti, Milano 1974 Brescia 1977, pgg. 137-151), il quale, pure lui, connetteva l'etrusco anche con antiche lingue dell'Asia Minore. Anzi, mentre mi è capitato di vedere citato qualche volta da parte degli archeologi italiani il citato studio di Marcello Durante, su quello del Carruba è calato un silenzio totale. E se ne capisce il motivo di fondo: il Carruba aveva osato trattare esplicitamente il tema della origine degli Etruschi, che era un tema proibito e scomunicato dalla scuola archeologica italiana...
Né migliore sorte hanno avuto in epoca successiva altri linguisti che hanno riportato la lingua etrusca ancora al quadro delle antiche lingue dell'Asia Minore: Vladimir I. Georgiev, La lingua e l'origine degli Etruschi (1979), e Lydiaka und Lydisch-Etruskische Gleichungen (1984); e Francisco R. Adrados, Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (but not Hittite) Language (1989) (in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", Washington 1989, Monograph no. 5, pgg. 363-383.
Nota bene: i necessari riferimenti bibliografici si possono trovare nello scritto dello stesso Autore, 50 anni di studi sulla lingua etrusca in Italia.
ignored and contradicted obviousnesses
and the philological and linguistic failure
In the last 70 years, in Italy, with regard to Etruscan language, several and authentic linguistic "obviousnesses" have been ignored, neglected and contradicted. Namely, some very simple and even obvious procedures and methods, that are usually applied every day in the study of any language, belonging to any language family, by all glottologists and historical linguistics in particular, have been ignored and not applied.
Ignorance and the failed application of such methodological "obviousnesses" and hermeneutical or interpretative procedures in the study of Etruscan language depended on a certain and clear fact:
in the last 70 years the study of Etruscan language has been gained, monopolized and ruled by the "Italian archaeological school", that is, by the archaeologists of the country and of the geographical area exactly where the great "Etruscan civilization" flourished.
1) The first "obviousness" which was ignored, neglected and contradicted by Italian archaeologists is the following: no man of culture exists, who does not know and understand that between archeology on one hand and glottology or historical and comparative linguistics on the other hand there is an ocean of differences, both regarding the subject of study and the methods that are employed. Thus any and all intervention that any archaeologist tries to make regarding the Etruscan language is completely illegitimate, over-ambitious and destined to failure.
And exactly from the fact that this first main and prejudicial "obviousness" on the immense difference that exists between archeology from one hand and glottology or comparative and historical linguistics on the other hand, all the other many "obviousnesses", which have been ignored and contradicted by archeologists in their study of the Etruscan language derived.
And then, with the methodological procedure of "internal comparison", the reciprocal comparison of different 8,500 words - if this was really and completely carried out - could surely lead to the "decoding" of the meaning of several Etruscan words.
I admit that such a method of "internal comparison" took place, but to a very reduced extent and led to the decoding of just some tens of words, which are continuously recurrent in the Etruscan inscriptions; MI «I, me», CLAN «son», CLENAR «children», SEX «daughter», PUIA «wife», LUPU «dead», LUPUCE «died, is dead», AIS, EIS «god», AISER, EISER «gods», SUTHI, SUTI «tomb, grave», the numerals TU, THU «one», ZAL, (E)SAL «two», CI «three», MAC, MAX «five», SEMPH «seven, CEZP «eight», NURPH «nine», SAR, ZAR «ten», ZATHRUM «twenty», CIALXL «thirty», SEALXL «sixty» and some other tens of words.
So, the procedure of the "internal comparison" among the 8,500 Etruscan words we know has been applied in the past 70 years by archologists, who are the monopolizers of the Ertruscan language, only to a very reduced extent. In particular they took care not to insert in the "internal comparison" also the big number of Etruscan anthroponyms that are to be found (pre-names, aristocratic names and nick names or Latin cognomina), because they are completely convinced that these have no value in order to understand the meaning of the single Etruscan words. In fact, in neglecting to examining the many Etruscan anthroponims as well, the archeologists - as I will say further on- completely failed.
3) But even worst is the non "external comparison" of the 8,500 Etruscan words we have with other words of ancient languages, and in particular still with Greek and Latin.
Unfortunately "numbers", notwithstanding and despite their precision, are easily forgotten. Both in Greek and in Latin about more than one hundred thousand words are possibly known, that is, all together, they are more than two hundred thousand; and this is a huge number which could offer linguists a very rich field of research and comparison.
Having said that, considering that Greek, Latin and Etruscans lived together in the same geographical area for several centuries, it is absurd to believe that many words of Etruscan language, which are unknown in their semantic value or "meaning", cannot be paralled by the 2,000 Greek and Latin words, the meaning of which is instead completely known. They will be either Greek and Latin words which entered the Etruscan language otherwise Etruscan words which were introduced in Greek or in Latin language. (It has to end to believe that a number of Greek and Latin words have entered in Etruscan language and no Etruscan word has entered the Greek and Latin; events of communication and exchange between one civilization and another never have a 'one and only way!).
And then the logical consequence of this special and successful general linguistic situation would be as follows: the "meaning" of the Greek and Latin words which is completely known will be the "meaning" of the corresponding Etruscan words as well. Thus the "meaning" of many Etruscan words would have been at last "deciphered" and discovered.
4) How was it possible that the Italian archaeologists have ignored and did not apply this important and necessary and so "obvious" process of "external comparison" between the Etruscan one hand and the Greek and Latin on the other? It was possible just because they have accepted totally uncritically the claim that "The Etruscan language is not comparable with any other language”.
This amazing thesis was for the first time supported by the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus (I 30, 2), who had lived a few decades before Christ; but he was not a glottologist or a linguist, also on the ground that it was necessary that from his time 1,800 years passed before the birth and affirmation in Europe of glottology as "the historical and comparative study of languages”.
In fact, the argument that "the Etruscan language is not comparable with any other" would scientifically be justified only on one condition: that the Italian archaeologists have proven their knowledge of all the languages of all the peoples who have lived in the past around the Mediterranean basin, and knowing them all to perfection archaeologists could eventually conclude with their negative thesis. But the Italian archaeologists have never demonstrated that they have an extensive and in-depth expertise in historical linguistics, and for this reason their theory of "incomparability of the Etruscan language with any other" was and is entirely without foundation. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that not even a proper linguist who possessed the vast and in-depth expertise of historical linguistics existed, which is why even any linguist would be able to speak and motivate this thesis.
Actually, when archaeologists have taken as good and they have disclosed their thesis by which '"Etruscan language is not comparable to any other," not only they went against another clear and strong "obviousness", but they even invited and imposed the linguist who wanted to participate in their meetings and to collaborate in their journals not to make use of what is the first and most important tool of linguistics, precisely the "comparison" .
5) But the sentence pronounced and executed by the archaeologists of the method of "comparison" in the study of the Etruscan language logically dragged another one: the condemnation of the "etymology" or of "etymological method". These are words which are condemned, prohibited, execrated at conferences and in journals of archaeologists relating the Etruscan language.
And instead I first believe that they are committing a big mistake not making a necessary and important distinction between the language "comparison" on the one hand and the "etymology" on the other. If I compare or connect the Latin/Etruscan gloss Amphiles, Ampiles «May», i.e. «month of the vine leaves», "with the Greek word ámpelos «vine, vineyard», "I simply establish a" comparison ", but if I said that the Etruscan name "derives" from the Greek one or the contrary, then I would do an "etymology," which means and implies precisely the "derivation".
In the "comparison" that I put forward among the 8,500 Etruscan words we have and which are unknown with 2,000 Greek and Latin that we have and do know, is already very important to stop at this stage, since it often allows us to "decipher" or just capture the "meaning" of Etruscan vocabulary. But no one can force a linguist not to proceed further, not to use the other important method of his research, "the etymological method". And in the example above no one can deny a linguist to envisage the thesis that the words Etruscan Amphiles, Ampiles «May», «month of the vine leaves» the Greek word ámpelos «vine vineyard», lat. pampinus «vine leaf» and (proto)Sardinian s'ampilare «the climbing of the vine too», "derive", independently of one another, by a word of viticulture in the "Mediterranean substratum and pre-Indo-European".
In fact, demanding a linguist who wants to take an interest in the Etruscan language, not to use the "comparison" or the "etymology" would correspond to expect that a bird flies without using its wings.
And this is another "obviousness" ignored and contradicted by archaeologists: the linguist has the right and the duty to perform both the "comparison" of words she/he studies and their "etymology" or origin.
6) On the other hand it is a fact that the Italian archaeologists unanimously claim that regarding Etruscan language "there is no problem of deciphering", as it had already been "deciphered completely”. But even with this thesis they do not realize they have a very improper and partly wrong concept of "linguistic deciphering”.
For an ancient language of which only written documentation are available, i.e. without any evidence in today's tongues, in fact there are two different "deciphering", or rather, two different levels of deciphering. The first one is to "decipher the alphabetical letters " or graphemes, that is, in being able to turn them into oral sounds, or phonemes, that is, in being able to pronounce them, and this first step of deciphering of course has already been made for the Etruscan language, which, by virtue of the use that the Etruscans made of Greek alphabet, is now almost perfectly and totally readable or pronounceable. But the real and most important "deciphering" comes later: from the graphemes it is easy to understand what is the actual meaning they carry and conceal, that kind of deciphering according to which from the "notation" you can go to their "factual or conceptual meanings”.
It is clear that the word and the concept of "deciphering" originates from the practice of secret messages that are encrypted and transmitted with "ciphers". Well, in an office of military deciphering, in which I worked during the Second World War, our first task was to be able to "catch" exactly the "ciphers" of the encrypted messages of the enemy, but the real decoding of these messages was made only later, when from the ciphers we caught we could get the message they carried and concealed, that is, when we could go from the signs which were encrypted to the facts or concepts which were meant and transmitted.
7) Another "obviousness" which is ignored and contradicted by Italian archaeologists is related to the initial choice of study material. You do not need great experience in language studies to know and understand that the inscriptions of an ancient language that is unknown are all the more easily to translate the more they are long. As a matter of fact in long inscriptions the chances of both the "internal comparison" and the "external comparison" of words are much more numerous than in the short inscriptions. In addition, in the long inscriptions amendments of errors of the ancient scribe are also possible, while in the short inscriptions such amendments are almost always impossible. And also, in the short inscriptions - just for reasons of brevity - abbreviations are frequently used, and they are often indecipherable because they were made at random by different scribes. What's more the discovery of the "falsity" of a long inscription is vastly easier than the discovery of the "falsity" of a short inscription.
This new "obviousness" of the study commonly used of a long than of a short text should have forced archaeologists to consider first of all the long Etruscan texts that are available, that is the Liber linteus the Mummy of Zagreb, which, several repetitions excluded, presents more than 500 words the Tabula Capuana which has about 190, the Cippo of Perugia with about 90, the Tabula Cortonensis with about 60; instead archaeologists have thrown themselves into the shorter Etruscan inscriptions. Some of them were certainly easy to interpret and translate, while others have proved immediately of difficult interpretation and translation.
It would be too long and also useless to show the long and intricate disputes that archaeologists have woven around some short and very brief Etruscan inscriptions, for which there was and still there is also the possibility that some mistakes made by the ancient scribe occurred and that some of them is even "false".
This serious difficulty represented by the type of Etruscan linguistic material which is in our possession cannot and should not be denied, but there was a major operation should be carried out, but this has not even been attempted by archaeologists: it is true that anthroponyms at an initial analysis look like "opaque" in the sense that they indicate or "mean" to the listener or reader only single men and single families, but true linguists know that, when analysed properly, even anthroponyms can become "transparent" in the sense that they may also reveal their original "meaning" too. Originally, also anthroponyms were "titles" as well, consisting almost always of nouns or adjectives used as nouns, even in their diminutive or augmentative form, which identified either a piece of personal data or a feature, physical or moral, of the individual who was named. For example, Italian surnames Cremona, Ferrara and Verona at first indicated the origin of a family from one of those cities, the surnames Bianchi, Neri and Rossi indicated, with the plural of the family, that their people were either of "white" or "black, dark" or "red" complexion; the surnames Forti, Gagliardi, Onesti indicated a moral quality of their holders, the surnames Medici, Mercante, Ferrari indicated their profession, the Etruscan forename Larth meant "commander, prince" (Cicero, Phil., 9.4; Livio, IV.17.1) and the other Velthur "vulture", and so on.
So anthroponyms after an initial "opacity" properly investigated by the linguist, eventually also offer a "transparency" of lexical value. And then, even the large number of anthroponyms documented by Etruscan inscriptions, if they were analysed according to the rules and procedures of linguistics, would end by offering many important lexical elements and ideas related to the Etruscan language.
9) Among the peoples of the Italian peninsula, with whom the Etruscans came into contact, the closest one were the Romans. Between the VIII and VI century, Etruscans and Romans lived almost in a close symbiosis. It must be noted that the river Tiber was not considered at that time in the centre of Latium, but it was considered the boundary between the Romans and the Etruscans. For this reason, Rome itself was not considered at the centre of Latium Vetus, but it was precisely considered a border town between Etruria and Latium. So much so that the very name Rome was probably Etruscan, namely a variant of the title ruma "breast", indicating the great "breast" or loop that makes up the Tiber at Tiber Isle and that the same name of the river was most likely Etruscan. Not only that, but at the time of the monarchy in force in Rome, the reigning dynasty of the Tarquins was of Etruscan nationality and also had held the city not just for some tens of years as it is commonly thought and said, but for more than a century. Even the most ancient inscriptions that have been found in Rome are in Etruscan language and alphabet and not in Latin.
Well, during the long and close contacts that the Etruscans and the Romans had especially in the age of the monarchy, it is clear and certain that several exchanges of words between their languages and especially of anthroponyms occurred. This has been brilliantly demonstrated by the old but still important and brilliant work of Wilhelm Schulze Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen (1904), who showed a wide correspondence of many Latin anthroponyms with Etruscan ones. In my recent work Dizionario della Lingua Etrusca (Sassari 2005) I think I have - by virtue of the successive discoveries of new Etruscan inscriptions - greatly expanded the number of those matches, reaching the number of about 1,600 Etruscan anthroponyms that correspond, more or less certainly, to as many Latin anthroponyms.
But - as I mentioned before - even Latin gentilicia and cognomina, as well as their proper anthroponomastic value, have a lexical value too and I have concluded that the lexical value of Etruscan anthroponyms is the same of the corresponding Latin anthroponyms. Thus the "comparison" and the connection between the Etruscan and Latin anthroponyms has allowed us to reach about 1,600 of Etruscan words of which, more or less, now we know the lexical and semantic value as well, i.e. to expand the number of Etruscan words of which we, more or less, deciphered the semantic value or "meaning" which was first ignored.
10) It is well known that Etruscans, in their qualification that is widely recognized by the ancients of a "very religious" people (which also meant "very superstitious"; they were already used to do, for good luck, horns with fingers), did influence the religion of the Romans a lot.
Suffice it to recall that in the Roman Capitoline Triad, only Jupiter was properly Roman, while the two other goddesses Juno and Minerva were certainly of Etruscan origin. It was therefore another linguistic obviousness to suppose that following the profound Etruscan influences on Roman religion also a large part of religious terminology of the Etruscans had entered into Latin language. This entry of Etruscan religious terminology in Latin was logical and "obvious" to suppose and to ascertain in the longer texts in Etruscan language we possess, namely the Liber Linteus of the Mummy of Zagreb and the Tabula Capuana, of which it was soon realized that they were precisely "religious texts".
But the Italian archaeologists have neglected even to try and carry out this research and checking, since they kept away from dealing with the great texts of the Etruscan language, and - as I have already said - they puzzled in the interpretation and translation of just the short inscriptions.
11) It is well known that the father of Western historiography, the Greek Herodotus (484-425 BC.), in one very famous passage of his (I 94), says that the Etruscans of Italy were nothing more than half of the population of Lydia - land of Asia Minor or Anatolia, situated in the centre of the Aegean coast - which had to emigrate because of a severe famine which lasted 18 years. This story of Herodotus was later confirmed and even enhanced with details by other 30 Greek and Latin authors, but he was opposed by the only Greek historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who instead supported the argument that the Etruscans were from Italy itself, that is they were "native (autochthonous)”. Dionysius had lived four centuries after Herodotus and so much later of the narrated events and also he had been essentially hostile to the Etruscans, of which he contested the contribution to the power of Rome, attributing it instead to the Greeks.
Well, it was logical and even "obvious" that among the 31 ancient Greek and Latin authors (Herodotus + 30) in favour of the migratory thesis (migrazionista, migratory) of Etruscans and only one - and, what is more, "suspected" - in favour of the autochthonous thesis (autoctonista), the Italian archaeologists were to opt for the thesis of the first ones, but instead they opted for the thesis of the second one. Fine example, this, of a big "historiographical scrupulousness", a new macroscopic episode of methodological "obviousness" which was ignored and contradicted: opting for the testimony of one witness and disregarding that of the other 31 texts!
Instead, starting from the fifties of the last century to the present, among Italian archaeologists this thesis prevails: «The problem of the origin of the Etruscans does not exist, as they were only of Italian origin, that is, they were "natives"». And all this is supported by archaeologists, although some linguists have been demonstrating for years many connections that exist between the Etruscan language on one side and some other languages of Asia Minor!
12) Starting from 1947, with his book L'Origine degli Etruschi (Rome 1947), Massimo Pallottino, head of the Italian Archaeological School, did not want any discussion on the "origin of the Etruscans" anymore and in practice, at least here in Italy, for many decades nobody has spoken on this subject anymore. According to him, that of the "origin of the Etruscans" would be a problem that does not make sense, as it would be the one of the "origin of the French”. Etruscan ethnos - he reasoned - was born and grew up only in Italy, just as the French civilization was born and grew up, that is "formed", exclusively in Gaul.
This concept of the "formation of the Etruscan civilization" which occurred only in Italy, similar to that of "the formation of French civilization", which occurred only in France, was an absolutely firm and indubitable point, which, since 1947, has affected almost all studies relating to the Etruscan civilization and even those relating to the Etruscan language up to now. Yet with a little attention it could be seen that the concept of "formation" had a weak point in itself: it was sufficient to note that, given that "French civilization was formed only in France", nothing prevents a researcher from dealing with the problem of the "origins" of the elements that have contributed to the formation of French civilization, namely the problem of the "origin of the Latin element" that came from Italy and the problem of the "origin of the French element", that came from Germany . Similarly, while conceding that "the Etruscan civilization was formed in Italy", nothing prevents a scholar to consider the problem of the "origin of the oriental element" which is clearly and strongly present in the Etruscan civilization (it even was rightly called the "Orientalizing") and which came from Lydia in Asia Minor.
As a result the Italian archaeological school has always insisted on the perfect continuity between the ancient Villanovan culture of central Italy and the later Etruscan civilization, while the distinguished French historian of ancient civilization Jean Bérard, (La Magna Grecia - storia delle colonie greche dell'Italia meridionale, Turin 1963, pg. 493) pointed out that "The Etruscan civilization of the historical age establishes itself in opposition to the Villanovan one within which it develops, and nothing is more different and contrasting between the poor graves of cremation of the Villanovan period and the rich burial chambers of the proper Etruscan period ".
Besides, another French scholar too, who is a deep connoisseur and illustrator of the Etruscan civilization, Jacques Heurgon, argued, albeit in a very diplomatic way, the thesis of the Eastern origin of the Etruscans (see La vie quotidienne chez les Étrusques, Paris 1961, Rome et la Méditerranée Western jusqu'aux guerres puniques, Paris 1969).
13) There are quite numerous and quite obvious cultural and linguistic connections that bind with Asia Minor or Anatolia also the ancient civilization of Sardi Nuragici of Sardinia, which was the first "civilization" of Italy, as it has preceded that of Etruscans of four centuries (XIII-IX BC). There is also some information from ancient Greek historians, which shows that even the Sardi Nuragici came - just as the Etruscans - from the previously mentioned Lydia in Asia Minor. And it is also very likely that Sardinians have derived their name and that of their country Sardò-Sardinia from the name of Sardis or Sardeis, the capital of Lydia.
Cultural connections between Sardi Nuragici and the Etruscans had already been discovered and reported since several decades: tholos or "dome" of Etruscan tombs similar to that of nuragic towers, funeral small ships - of distant Egyptian origin - found in Etruscan tombs, which are similar to the nuragic ones; Etruscan bronze small statues of priests, priestesses, faithfuls and animals similar to the nuragic ones, Etruscan weapons similar to nuragic weapons.
These close cultural connections between the Etruscans and the Sardi Nuragici find their explanation in the important fact that Sardinia was and is a stone's throw from Etruria. For the inhabitants of the Etruscan cities of the Tyrrhenian coast - they were the older ones - Cerveteri, Tarquinia, Vetulonia and Populonia, it was quicker, easier and safer to reach Sardinia than the Etruscan cities of the Adriatic, Spina and Adria.
And despite this other "obviousness" of the close and obvious cultural connections and of geographical proximity, when with my first works La lingua dei Sardi Nuragici e degli Etruschi and Lessico Etrusco Latino comparato col Nuragico (Sassari 1981, 1984), I pointed out the 'existence even of language connections between the wrecks of the Sardinian language Nuragici with that of Etruscans, the Italian archaeologists did not pay any attention to it. They did not object to anything, but they spread a veil of total silence on the subject.
Only an archaeologist at the University of Perugia intervened with an article published in a Rome newspaper to "destroy" my book. I immediately replied by showing that he had no expertise to judge a book of historical linguistics and that- much worse - he had not even read it! A few years later the same person decided to intervene on my translation of the Tabula Cortonensis, but again showing his total linguistic incompetence, so as not to know the difference between "subjective genitive" and "objective genitive" (see - quoted above - I Grandi Testi, Paragraph 3, p. 129).
14) In the ruling thesis which is unanimously and uncritically accepted by Italian archaeologists, according to which "the Etruscan language is not comparable with any other" it was and is implicit the other argument that "the Etruscan language is not an Indo-European language”.
It is quite clear and still "obvious" that to address this topic on the Indo-European character or not of the Etruscan language you must have a very wide and very deep glottological background, that is, of "historical and comparative linguistics"; and this, of course, does not belong to the scientific grounding of an archaeologist. This is despite the thesis or the ruling of "non-indo-european character of Etruscan language", perhaps the most widely and most commonly supported and repeated argument by Italian archaeologists.
Yet there are nor few or little authoritative glottologists who instead have argued the thesis of the Indo-European character of Etruscan language: W. Corssen, S. Bugge, I. Thomopoulos, E. Vetter, A. Trombetti, E. Sapir, G. Buonamici, E. Goldmann, P. Kretschmer, F. Ribezzo, F. Schachermayr, A. Carnoy, VI Georgiev, WM Austin, RW Wescott, FC Woudhuizen, F. Bader, FR Adrados, etc.. and also the author of this study is included. I state that is fairly well known that the discovery of the Indo-European linguistic unity has been historically and primarily achieved owing to the fact that the numerals of the first decade of many languages do correspond with each other. Well, for my part I have even shown that precisely almost all Etruscan numerals of the first decade correspond to those of other Indo-European languages (see M. Pittau, Tabula Cortonensis - Lamine di Pirgi e altri testi etruschi tradotti e commentati, already quoted, Paragraph 5, which can be read also on my website www.pittau.it).
a) enclitic conjunction in Etruscan -C,-ca, - us equal to that of Sanskrit - ca and Latin - que (Senatus Populus Romanus-que ) (LEGL § 110).
d) ending of the Etruscan present participle - nth (AMINTH «Lover» CLEVANTH «offerer», NUNTHENTH «prayer») equal to - nt - of Latin and Greek (LEGL § 124).
e) ending the Etruscan preterite - ke - us equal to the Greek - ke : Etr. TURICE, TURUCE, TURCE, TURKE «donated, has donated» to compare with the Greek dedórheke «donated, has donated».
f) the Etruscan locative ending - t e), t-(i)-th (e)-th(i) same as Greek, although rare, óikothi «at home» thyrhethi «at the door, outside», Ilióthi «in Ilium» (LEGL § 59).
These could seem convergences of very little importance, given the very small phonetic consistency of those morphemes and of this adverb, but instead it must be pointed out their strong demonstrative consistency, provided that, for the "economy rule" which - as you know - plays a huge role in the field of languages as well, linguistic facts that are more frequent and thus the most important are those that have the shortest and simplest phonetic structure (LEGL § 48).
And above all, we must note that these are linguistic facts which are not related to the lexicon, in which loanwords among the languages are very frequent, but to the "morphology", in which borrowings are rare.
So even this very substantial and considerable "language obviousness" has been ignored and contradicted by Italian archaeologists, who presume to be able to also deal with the problems of "Etruscan language": their scientific basic knowledge does not allow them to intervene at all on the question of the Indo-European character or not of the Etruscan language.
15) With such a long series of "obviousness" related to specific scientific expertise, to exact linguistic procedures, - methodological and hermeneutical ones - which were ignored, overlooked and contradicted, it was logical and necessary that the Italian archaeological school, monopolizing the Etruscan language, would lead to what was undoubtedly the greatest "philological-linguistic failure" that has ever been in the history of philological and linguistic disciplines, starting with the Alexandrian philology up to the present. And it is a "failure" that has been going on for 70 years and even continues unabated!
In this very way and for these exact reasons, a fact that seemingly so far could appear completely inexplicable can be explained: ancient languages which have been discovered in recent times and are documented with scanty and inconsistent inscriptions or excerpts of inscriptions, in a few decades have been by linguists deciphered, translated and classified. This is the case of the following languages: Sumerian, Hittite, Hurrian, Urartaic, Elamite, Ugaritic, Lycian, Lydian, Phrygian, etc. But, with reference to the Etruscan language, which is documented by about 11,000 inscriptions and also by quite consistent texts, such as Liber linteus and the Tabula Capuana, hermeneutical and research progress, carried out by the Italian archaeological school in recent decades have been almost imperceptible. The enormity of this "cultural failure" is just directly proportional to the great political, organizational and economic power that the Italian archaeologists have got and that they use extensively.
On this subject it should be noted that archaeologists - especially the Italian ones - have a huge political, economic and organizational power, that no category of humanities scholars, sociologists, anthropologists, philologists, linguists, historians, etc. not even dream to possess.
Secondly, since archaeologists are the "gatekeepers" of a considerable part of the "archaeological and artistic heritage" of Italy - which is also its largest and most true economic richness - for their office they get major funding from the State , Regions, Provinces, "Comunità Montane" (Mountain Communities), by municipalities and banks; with this money they are able to organize, with total autonomy and discretion, ground excavations, restoration of monuments, exhibitions, conferences and to print all publications and scientific journals they ever want.
In addition to this in the publishing houses archaeologists are also able to block and boycott publications that are not to their liking. I will present a personal case: a well-known and leading publisher in Florence declared to be available and happy to publish my work Dizionario della Lingua Etrusca (Sassari 2005), which includes, analyzed and often translated, the entire vocabulary of the Etruscan language, which has been discovered and published up to 2005, and it was the first and only overall vocabulary of the Etruscan language ever existing. Of this Dictionary of Etruscan Language, Riccardo Ambrosini, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Pisa, as well as President of the "Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere e Arti," at which I had been called to hold two conferences, one on Tabula Cortonensis and the other one just on my Dictionary, had written to me from San Lorenzo di Moriano on 18/11/2005 as follows: "Dearest Pittau, I have just received your wonderful Dictionary of Etruscan Language and I hastened to read some pages that attracted my immediate curiosity. I want to congratulate you on the clever arrangement of the material and the prudence of some proposals, which you emphasize well in your clear introduction. (....) Congratulations and a heartfelt sorry for my envy for your wonderful work, and together with these, my warmest thanks and most cordial greetings. Your [signed]". But the Florentine publisher was dissuaded from publishing my Dictionary at least by some members of the "Istituto di Studi Etruschi ed Italici" (Etruscan and Italic Studies Institute) in Florence, then apologized to me by saying that he had continuous and organic dealings with that institution...
Finally, the directors of the various archaeological museums are often able to make "private" what are the "public archaeological and art heritage", i.e. belonging to the Italian nation, failing to show them to other scholars and using them instead for their own publications. A dozen years ago, the Superintendent of the Archaeological Heritage of Tuscany, having got hold of the seven fragments of the famous Tabula Cortonensis, kept them hidden for more than five years to finally put them into circulation with his personal publishing (see M. Pittau, Tabula Cortonensis - Lamine di Pirgi ed altri testi etruschi tradotti e commentati , Sassari 2000, pages. 41-42).
Well, with all their immense political, administrative and economic power it was not difficult for the Italian archaeologists to grab, govern and monopolize the Etruscan language: they are able to organize and rule all the conferences on the Etruscan language they want, choose the official speakers, of course excluding those they do not like, print publications related to the Etruscan language, accept or reject linguistic study papers of their magazines - especially the richest one that is the "Etruscan Studies" ("Studi Etruschi") in Florence.
Finally - last but not least - archaeologists obviously are ruling in their absolute pleasure, as well as in the allocation of regional Archaeological Superintendence, the chairs of Etruscologia in the universities across Italy, chairs in which they pursue and delude themselves that they know how to teach the Etruscan language too, with the help of some educational booklets that I, who also wrote the successful La Lingua Etrusca- grammatica e lessico (Nùoro 1997; initials LEGL), do not hesitate to call "indecent" because merely state rudiments of the Etruscan language dating back to the middle of the last century.
I begin by mentioning the case of the linguist Marcello Durante, author of the important study Considerazioni intorno al problema della classificazione dell'Etrusco - "Part One" (in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici", VII, 1968, pp. 7-60, - "Part One" (in "Studies Mycenaean and Aegean-Anatolian", VII, 1968, p. 7-60), in which he connected the Etruscan language with ancient Anatolian languages and in which there was the announcement of a subsequent "Part Two”. Having one day asked this colleague, Mr Durante, when his second study would appear, since he announced the printing of it, he replied, very disappointed, that he had completely renounced to his idea after he observed the utter indifference with which the Italian archaeologists had received his first study ...
And a complete indifference the Italian archaeologists showed for a study of another glottologist at the University of Pavia, a specialist in Anatolian languages, Onofrio Carruba, L'Origine degli Etruschi: il problema della lingua (Atti VI Convegno Internazionale di Linguisti, Milano 1974 Brescia 1977, p. 137-151), (Acts VI International Congress of Linguists, London 1974 Brescia 1977, pages. 137-151). He, too, connected the Etruscan language also with ancient languages of Asia Minor. Indeed, while I have seen mentioned a few times by the Italian archaeologists the study by Marcello Durante, on the one by Mr Carruba a silence fell. And the reason is quite clear: Carruba had dared to explicitly address the issue of origin of the Etruscans, which was a forbidden topic and excommunicated by the Italian archaeological school ...
And other linguists had later no better luck: they reported the Etruscan language still in the framework of the ancient languages of Asia Minor, Vladimir I. Georgiev, The language and the origins of the Etruscans (1979), and Lydiaka und Lydisch-Etruskische Gleichungen (1984) , and Francisco R. Adrados, Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (Hittite but not) Language (1989) (In "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", Washington 1989, Monograph no. 5, pages. 363-383.
And finally, the undersigned, linguist who wrote more than anyone on the tongue and rusca (12 books and hundreds of studies ) and in my research and analysis have involved the high number of about 1,000 titles, 2,500 anthroponyms and 1,600 Etruscan texts: total indifference on the part of etruscologists-archaeologists, absolute silence on their part!
However, it must be pointed out and lamented that, in general, linguists, Italian and foreign ones, have been kept and were kept away from the Etruscan language, because obviously they were intimidated by the overwhelming power of archaeologists and by the ostracism exercised by them against "heretics".
But probably even more serious is the "cultural failure" on the Etruscan language caused by archaeologists, towards the great mass of readers and fans, who are a great number in Italy and in Europe: as a result of the ruling thesis of the archaeologists about the fact that "the Etruscan language is not comparable with any other", in the general intellectual public, and even among the teachers of every school and grade, it exists the serious prejudice by which the "Etruscan language is all a mystery," "the Etruscan language is an impenetrable sphinx", which so far no one has been able to "decipher".
And this prejudice that runs in the general intellectual public drags another even more serious and very picturesque: in newspapers, in magazines, in television programmes of various broadcasts, at least every half year an erratic genius arises who is the “discoverer of the decryption key of Etruscan language". And he has for some months the media fame and glory, as long as this is obscured after a while by a new "discoverer of the decryption key of Etruscan language" ...
So these are the actual results of the monopoly and the ruling which made a category of the Etruscan language, or, rather, a "caste" of individuals so powerful that they can pass off as "linguistic competence" and boast of what is absolutely not!

References: § 124
 § 59
 § 110
 § 124
 § 59
 § 48