Talk:Etruscan civilization/Archive 1

message: * The "Aryan" article linked from here does not seem to provide a suitable definition of the term as used in this context. Does anyone els mildly disagree with the polytheism and divine worship bit? - some year 12 student trying to get a good mark---- Does anyone have any serious objection to the removal of links for which there are no articles? UnDeadGoat
:* Yes. The red emphasis tips people off that an article could be done and probably should be. Or, that a link to an article should be fixed.Dave 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aryan" article 

message: The simplest solution it seems to me, from the main article's assertion that Rome began as a fully Etruscan city, is that Rome was founded by the Etruscan Leagues, and remained solidly Etruscan until it was liberated by Republican forces in 510 BCE and joined the Republic.  The Etruscans were driven into a quarter "in their own city".  The Etruscans are an outgrowth of the Villanovan culture, which began around 1100 BCE, shortly after the Trojan War when we'd expect Trojan refugees to arrive and change the culture (from the earlier Terramare Culture).  Lydia = Latin, Troy = Etruria, genetic links, oral tradition all point this general way.  The grafting of Republican and Etruscan cultures together is seen in the juxtaposition of the PATRICIANS and PLEBIANS, with the former being the "old money" Etruscan / Trojan "elites", and the latter being the Republicans.
* Genetics: from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181945 :"... In particular, the Turkish component in their gene pool appears three times as large as in the other populations..." This gives clues about Etruscans, even their name "Etrusc" is similar to "Turc"
* Question? Does any one else feel that the theory about the Etruscans or even the Romans being Trojan desendants is true? -Someguy
:* Man, I think that's myth.  I think that myth was created by whoever wrote the Aeneid (it was Virgil).  I forget who it was, but I'm almost certain it was just to create some kind of nationalism in Rome. -anonymous
:* First, perhaps you've all misplaced your copy of Histories by the classical Greek historian named Herodotus where he identified the origin of the Etruscans (whom he called the Tyrrhenoi as they were known in the Greek world at that time). He said they were from Lydia. Look at the map. Where is Lydia? Now, where is Troy? See any cool connexions? Secondly, it's really hard to gloss over the similarities between Etruscan culture, religion, architecture and other material characteristics that have a strong kinship to things we find contemporaneously in Asia Minor. Thirdly, the time in which the Etruscans would have conceivably migrated to Western Italy is narrowed down to around 1200 BCE (which is precisely during the nasty Hellenic Dark Ages). Everything checks out. If the Etruscans aren't from Troy itself and if the names they are given by other cultures (Roman <Tusci>, Greek <Tyrrhenoi>, Egyptian [twrš]) are a geniously elaborate red herring caused purely by chaos theory, damn if they aren't a hop, skip and a jump to the Illiad. --Glengordon01 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oh, by the way, if Etruscans are indeed from Troy, then the only way a Roman citizen would be descended from Troy is if he was in fact an Etruscan or descended from Etruscans. Romans, as a people however, cannot be descended from Troy because they are largely an Indo-European people that entered Northern Italy prior to the arrival of the Etruscans. So... It's only a partial myth then :) --Glengordon01 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hello guys. I am or was a classicist. You are reinventing the wheel. Yes, all those views have been considered long ago. No, there are still no clear-cut answers. Vergil was pro-Augustus, no doubt. So was most everyone else. It is not a matter of voting here. What do you think Wikipedia is, revealed scripture? None of the stuff in the article is my personal opinion (most of the article is mine) that you can cancel out of existence with a Wikipedian vote. These are issues in the field. So you do or do not think the Trojan theory is true. So what? It was presented by Virgil, a major Roman author, and therefore has a place in an article on this topic. You probably couldn't even list the articles and books that have published on the topic, they are so many. Glengordon, you are tying to summarize too big a topic in one paragraph. It can't be done. Eveything you said can be elaborated and contested (and has been) in pages. As for the Indo-european, yep, the Italics were Indo-european. End of story. The Etruscans were not. Just because the citizens of Masschachusetts speak Indo-european doesn't mean the indigenes did. Good luck in following down your interest in classics. More work, guys, more work.Dave 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Was a classicist? What does that mean? As in "I was a classicist... until that tragic car accident forced me to amputate a leg"? I was merely responding to the discussion-provoking question at the top by Someguy: "Question? Does any one else feel that the theory about the Etruscans or even the Romans being Trojan desendants is true?" Perhaps you mistook the **second** quote to be mine, but it's not (so I marked it -anonymous). Anyways I naturally decided to put in my two cents with my opinion (what? opinion? that's crazy! let's all be nihilo-relativistic wikiclones instead and smoke hippy crack, yay!). I didn't say "Let's put it to a vote" (as if I believe that much in humanity! god no!), or "I want to summarize the universe in a single sentence", or "Virgil is the spawn of Satan and he must die!" (erh, you did know that Virgil is spelled with an "i" in English, right?). Just try to read and ponder first. Don't project nonexistent arguements onto people because your coffee was switched to decaf at the office. Just chillax and smoke your hippy crack, hehe :)  --Glengordon01 07:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * PS. There's gotta be a better and clearer way to add comments than this pre-1997 madhacker method using this user-hostile textarea tag, programmer code and cheap server-side script. If someone doesn't timestamp their comments, or they fail to indent, or they use more than one paragraph, it's hard to know who said what. Hmm. Maybe Wikipedia's own interface should be open source too. I so would make this interface happier for everyone. --Glengordon01 07:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Etruscans 

message: * Is it possible that Sirens (of Odyssey) may be proto-Tyrrhenians colonists (from Asia Minor), in Corsica? --IonnKorr 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I can't say I ever heard that theory. But, in the field, you would need some evidence, something said or found that points in that direction. Then you could write it up nicely and present it to your peers or your mentors. Dave 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrrhenians and Sirens 

message: *I changed from "Volsinii modern Bolsena or alternatively Orvieto" into "Volsinii, modern Orvieto". The Etruscan Volsinii was where Orvieto (Urbs Vetus, the old city) is now. During Roman times an earthquake destroyed Volsinii, which was rebuilt where now Bolsena stands, on the lake with the same name, which is therefore a Roman foundation (even though in a countryside where everything old enough is Etruscan). The new town was named Volsinii Novi (New Volsinii), out of which the modern name Bolsena comes. 
* Alalia, modern Aleria is in Corsica, not in Sardinia.
* I added Mantua to the list of Etruscan cities; it was a very important Etruscan town in what is now Lombardy. The poet Vergil was born in a village near Mantua and, if I remember correctly, he claims some Etruscan origin. Anyway, his cognomen "Maro" (full name Publius Vergilius Maro) sounds very Etruscan. Guparra 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Added "presumed" before "modern Orvieto", because a better examination of texts shows that alternaitve identifications are still extant, even though much less accepted. Guparra 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: * Ah, but in what way does it "sound" Etruscan if we're unsure of its etymology and of the meaning of the Etruscan word maru? Red herrings and folk etymologies are lurking everywhere. --Glengordon01 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities

message: * Could please the wikipedian who added the lines about Russian language give a reference to the work of the St. Petersburg researcher? Also, the helmet represented in the Crocifisso necropolis is very common in Greece in the first place, it is a Corinthian helmet without the nose protection, specialists have a name for it. Guparra 16:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I went ahead and reverted the unreferenced additions by User:213.221.33.52. That user has a tendency to subtlely add incorrect, misleading, or deliberately POV material. --NormanEinstein 16:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian

message: * I completely object to most of this section as it is written now, but what can you do when the masses insist on eating dog manure and rehashing lunatic pet theories? I'll explain below piece by piece, word by word. --Glengordon01 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government 

message: Hi, this image is a suspected copyright violation and may soon be deleted from the Commons:. If your Wikipedia allows fair use, please consider uploading the image locally. Thank you. Jastrow 11:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Paris-Louvre-Etruscan Couple.jpg]] 

message: Here's an interesting link on this subject. Before I add it, could people have a look and see whether it should be included? Slightly cooky title but don't be put off.
www.mysteriousetruscans.com
ThePeg 14.7.2006
------
The information on MysteriousEtruscans.com is relatively descent (at least when relative to other junk links like Etruscan: an archaic form of Hungarian). I stick up for people who say things like: "The present day notion that there is a "mystery" regarding the Etruscan language is fundamentally erroneous; [...] The real problem with the Etruscan texts lies in the difficulty we have in understanding the exact meaning of the words and grammatical forms." A bang-on statement.
There are some mistakes however. Be careful (hence the need to read multiple sources). For example, when they write out the numbers in Etruscan and compare them to other languages, they get some numbers wrong. The site displays "nutph" instead of nurph, "maK" instead of mach and "sa" instead of a. --Glengordon01 20:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting link - what do people think?

message: Claim: "Also the name is connected to the biblical patriarch Tirash, the ancestor of the Thracians and Etruscans"
I located the source:
:: Karel Van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Second Edition. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
There's a critique of this book and an article in pdf both confirming that Tirash is not in the bible. It's supposed to be Ugaritic and it's only very weakly connected with the actual biblical word tîrōš meaning "new wine". So this is nonsense. --Glengordon01 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tirash and Bible references 

message: There are many archaeological, linguistical, genetical evidences that the Etruscans descend from the Nuragicians, islanders of Sardinia. The UNESCO is still studying them. 
--Nicholas 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscans and Sardinia 

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

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

message: 1)
I've removed the following statement from the article: "Today, the Etruscan aura lingers in the plowed fields of Tuscany, especially in the late afternoon when the sunlight accentuates the amber furrows."  If anyone can state exactly what encyclopedic information this statement is meant to convey, then it should be reworded and inserted back into the article. Robotman1974 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's obvious : "Today, the Etruscan aura lingers in the plowed fields of Tuscany, especially in the late afternoon when the sunlight accentuates the amber furrows." is a badly writtern way of saying "popular location for British ex-pats with property values increasing." 217.7.209.108 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed statements

message: Under External Links, you have: 
Web bibliography of Etruscan-related sites (in Italian) 
It's actually in French
203.49.162.74 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Épigraphie étrusco-italique 

message: Am I mistaken to think that the following, added by AbUser:207.27.152.51,  is simply based on third-hand rumor of the Liber Linteus that was used, in Egypt, to provide linen for mummy wrappings and was rediscovered in Zagreb? Is the rest of this just an improv? (Wetman 09:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, there have been quite a few discoveries of Etruscan mummies, ironically all in Souther Italy. It is guessed that this is a result of the large population of nomadic preists and especially due to their great "Festitius de deas Dianae" of "Festival of the Goddes Diana", in which many Etruscans traveled to the South Eastern coast of Italy.
A closer look shows that neither edit was in good faith. Deleted and the IP warned. --Wetman 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Etruscan mummies"

message: In my second pass I found this inscrutable passage tucked in there without any relevance that I can see to what was being said, so I have removed it to here. I have read this carefully and I honestly can say that I am no more enlightened than when I first read it. It says nothing. However I am willing to admit the author may have intended to say something and knew what he meant to say. It did not get through, author. I would guess that the paragraph uses too few words for the meaning or else the wrong words. I would say, if after reading my second pass you still think it has relevance as some sort of caveat, rewrite it addressing the clarity issue, study the logic of the article, and put it in, this time in the most relevant place. The passage:
"While this study gives an insight into the genetic composition of the Etruscans, it cannot resolve the linguistic controversy: An invasion of an elite imposing itself over autochthonous subjects often leads to linguistic changes as part of cultural hegemony without leaving genetic traces."Dave 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inscrutable passage

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

message: I removed this statement from the intro:
"numerous artifacts of Etruscan culture survived the Roman conquest. For example, according to doctrinal studies, the ancient roots of Roman Law derive directly from the Etruscan religion. [ref] J. Szmodis, The Reality of the Law: From the Etruscan Religion to the Postmodern Theories of Law; (Kairosz, Budapest), 2005.. [end ref]"
The main problem is, this is a book in Hungarian and is not available in Engish. The site given as reference is mainly in Hungarian but it does contain a brief abstract in English. Unless the reader knows Hungarian, he/she cannot verify anything from the book and the abstract is little help.
I understand what the author is trying to do. However, examples  are't necessary at that location, in the intro. The whole article is about "artifacts" of the Etruscan civilization. I notice also that the author has given the same reference under Etruscan mythology. As this is an English Wikipedia it needs English references, not that the original has to be in English, but translations should be available. Otherwise, you could write a whole article and have nothing but references in, say, Chinese, Russian or Arabic script. I am sure plenty or work has been done on most topics in countries speaking those languages.Dave 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic statement

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

message: people would use the roads. roads as meaning roads is an area where cement.Romans use lava blocks as roads.Romans won the first punic war. After the second punic war there was a 50 yrs of peace.70.150.50.100 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  roads 

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

message: Merge Etruscan history in here. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Do not merge - Merging seems a little hasty. While I am sure it is irritating to see short articles that may appear similar the two subjects are in reality different. Perhaps a good idea would be to ask for assistance in expanding the article. I have found the member User:Simmaren to be very helpful. He was more than willing to help me expand Rostra and while it still needs work (and is missing the Rostra of Diocletian) his input was invaluable. He truly motivated me. I found that while he may not agree with something, he does not delete fully referenced material. Are you familiar with how to use in-line citations? Here are the codes needed to reference from both Internet sites and books;
   = Citing Web sites as reference code.
     = Citing books as reference code.
Just open the edit box and copy and paste the needed code and fill out all the information!
--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no more mergers right now. These articles need a lot of work first. Only when and if they are well referenced and organised will we be able to make valid judgements about any mergers. Also, shouldn't that cite template only be used where the article already uses it? References should be consistent. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

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

message: *Vipsul > Faesulae > Fiesole 
*Felathri > Volterra 
*Fufluna /Pupluna > Populonia 
*Vetluna > Vetulonia 
*Clevsin > Clusium > Chiusi 
*Curtun > Cortona 
*Perusna > Perusia >  Perugia 
*Velzna > Volsinii > Bolsena 
*Tarchna > Tarquinii > Tarquinia 
*Cisra > Caere > Cerveteri 
*Veia > Veii 
*Mutina > Modena 
*Ruma/Roma (Rome) (an Etruscan name?) 
*Parma
*Arimna > Rimini 
*Atria > Adria 
*Ceisna > Caesena > Cesena 
*Felsina > now Bologna 
*Manthva > Mantova (Mantua) 
*Ravna > Ravenna 
*Spina 
*Nula > Nola 
*Alalia > Aleria 
*Sena > Siena 
*Capna > Capena 
*Tuscana > Toscana (Tuscany)
*Velch > Vulci > Volci
*Aritim > Arretium > Arezzo
__________________________________________________
& Tusculum : The name of "Tusculum" means "the settlement of the Tusci(the Etruscans)", but it was not an Etruscan city. It was a Latin city (a city from Latium). The name of Tusculum shows us that it might be conquered by the Etruscans before...  Böri (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan place names 

message: Etruscan society was most likely egalitarian rather than patriarchal ,as someone entitled 'hector' keeps writing. By the sentence put before it in the article one can conclude they were more likely egalitarian. They used the title of both their mother and their father. Unlike patriarchal cultures were they did not recognise the mother's name. This is in addition to the depictions of women with writing on their mirrors and possessions, indicating that they were educated. And women were also depicted alongside men at equal statue on sarcopahgi ie: the smiling couple of cerveteri.
:Firstly, sign your messages. Secondly, what u have just said does not justify to name their society 'egalitarian'. this word contradicts to what the paragraph says. read more carefully: Females could state that they were the daughter of a father [...] and the wife of a husband, Conversely, a man was never described as a husband of a woman. Clearly patriarchal society. --Hectorian 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "patriarchal" has become a pop term, encompassing many different ways of social organization.  Matriliny and patriliny involve how names and goods are passed down.  Matrilocal and patrilocality involve whose family home is used for the new famiy, as people weren't neolocal at that time.  For something to be called a patriarchy, you need evidence that fathers were in charge of both sons and daughters, and that mothers had no say in who their offspring married, or where their property went when they died.  Do you have that evidence?  Please give me your citations, as I'd love to see them.LeValley 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I agree with Glengordon.  These absolutist labels are meaningless without a thorough exploration of the myriad ways gender has played into power systems.  Did the Etruscans permit women to own property?  Could women have religious rites without male interference?  Were there things only women knew that were essential to the culture?  The reason that women's names included patroyms is probably because they were patrilocal (the woman went from her father's house to her husband's father's house or husband's house).  That, only, does not make a society patriarchal, it's just a convenience nearly all societies (until very recently) used to keep households in order.  It seems likely, as is found in most patrilocal societies, that the land passed down on the father's side.  But in many societies that were patrilocal, ambilineal relations governed other aspects of life (many other forms of property besides land) and in many, women were free to separate themselves from their husbands and go back to their father's (or brother's houses), if they did not enjoy enough power or esteem in their husband's house.  In many Hellenic communities, they took their children with them, hence the continual problem of some men being unable to find an heir and so many women seeming to be raising fatherless sons (until the time came to send the boy back, properly indoctrinated in his mother's household, to claim his father's property - in which case, the mother and her family stood to gain a great deal).  That's *not* a patriarchy.  It's something else.  The names proposed for these various arrangements are still fluid in anthropology, and everyone who has studied these arrangements knows that most anthropologists have been surprised to learn how fluid and gender-ambiguous many social relationships really were.  It wasn't all about Men Rule or Woman Rule.  Much more complex.  LeValley 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Etruscan Society, Patriarchal or Egalitarian

message: I've just seen this article for the first time, and it's awful.  One thing is very clear about the Etruscans: there are major problems in knowing anything much about them, because of lack of evidence and because of powerful myths that get in the way.  And there has not been a lot of integrative work done on them by modern scholars.  This is the first message that the article needs to give, but it's silent about it.  Indeed, there is not much here other  than quotes from primary or very old secondary sources; and the talk page is full of secondary-school level primary research!  What a mess.  Deipnosophista 06:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Deipnosophista, although I'm not hopeful that any Wiki can sort this kind of thing out.  We apparently have a proposal that some aspects of Etruscia came from Sardinia, and if you go to the article on Sardinia, it is said that people from Etruscia were the first permanent settlers on Sardinia.  Rather circular, no?  Apparently, the kind of language and article organization that could help solve these problems doesn't come easily in the Wiki format.  The first paragraph should indeed contain a brief and academic summary of current controversies and issues in Estrucan studies.  You'd need an expert to do that - and experts are driven away in exasperation from articles like this one.LeValley 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: improvement needed

message: These people are originally from ancient India from Vedic time, who moved towards norther hemisphere of earth i.e. around Europe. In fact there is great influence of vedic culture on Etruscan and then their descendants like Greek, Romans etc. Please visit below links.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/photographic_evidence_of_vedic_influence.htm
::Most experts would say that after the Neolithic was well-established in Old Europe, people moved from there to India (at around the time of the Vedas) as well as southward, onto the Mediterranean peninsulas and Islands.  Getting real chronologies together, with all the disparate lines of evidence, is quite a task - but you'd need to do that to prove your statement.--LeValley 20:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Originality of Etruscans

message: Now, I'm not at all sure whether or not this is true, personally I don't believe it, but I've heard stories that the Etruscan people stem from Troas, Troy. I might mention that I find it likely this is merely a sought after speculation, perhaps as old as the Aeneid. I would like to see a section about this, but I also have to warn that as far as I know this is only speculation and has probably been thouroughly disproved - in which case such a section could act as a positive mythbuster, which I have experienced Wikipedia to be rich of.
The short version is that there is a "connection" between "Etruria" and "Troas," which roughly outputs a mere "tro(/oi)." Treat this as a request in need of discussion. 93.166.114.170 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth of Etruria = Troy: Popular belief? 

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

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

message: What are the influence of the Eturscans on Ancient Rome?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.182.226 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the influence of the Eturscans on Ancient Rome? 

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

message: I'm confused by this.  Likewise, "After 500 BC the political destiny of Italy passed out of Etruscan hands."  This all happened before the Battle of Cumae (475 BC)?  So Rome controlled Etruscia before that battle and before Carthage was defeated by Syracuse (480 BC)?
Rome was barely a republic fresh out from Etruscan domination in 500 BC. The article even gives the date of Roman assimilation as 550 BC, when, at least according to Roman tradition, Rome still had an Etruscan king. Rome didn't even conquer the adjacent Etruscan city-state of Veii until just before the Gallic invasion in the 4th century BC. Rome only conquered Etruria by the 3rd century BC, and assimilation almost certainly took decades, if not centuries, to occur after the initial conquest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.168.74 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruria was assimilated by Rome around 500 BC? 

message: It would seem not too great a linguistic stretch to imagine that the Etruscans own name for themselves, Rasna, might in some way relate to the word 'Thrace' and its various ancient adjectives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.59.31 (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the world of random speculation, not the world of the linguists. Historical linguistics studies the regular change of some sounds into others. These changes are expressed in laws. So, we don't speak of linguistic stretches, we speak of regular sound changes by which Rasna could have become Thrace, backed up by similar known changes in other words. That is what the historical linguists do for a living. An encyclopedic article therefore would have to present the linguistic view. If it is only someone's unsupported opinion it isn't encyclopedic. Sorry to intrude on you like this as I was off WP but someone chose to pull my chain and I saw this. My view is not arrogance, it is truth as I understand it. If you know better, ignore me. Truth is not what the democracy votes it to be or a matter of personal courtesy from me to you. A thing is true or not true and any of us getting mad about it changes nothing. If I know what is true and you do not, your resenting that fact does not make me arrogant, it makes you arrogant. Who are you to resent the truth? Bye now. If you want to hear flattery don't pull my chain any more.66.30.95.118 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bickering aside, I agree with the view of 66.30.95.118 that an encyclopedia isn't the place for such speculation without sources. Blue Danube (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasna = Thrace? 

message: Since there's no project page specifically pertaining to the Etruscans, this seems like the best place to post a notice on the following.
There is an AfD discussion for a new article Vegoia and Egeria. (The much-needed article Vegoia was recently created, if this has escaped your notice.) You are invited to give your views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  invitation to comment 

message: Hei i like to Contribute.
Cane Canem
Rolf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthevine (talk • contribs) 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan and Rome like to join 

message: I find this article very interesting on the Etruscan language and where it might have come from.... Hungarian.  I am surprised to not see it mentioned in the article.
http://www.mostmagyarul.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112&Itemid=118
I personally know of a couple of Hungarians that have a particular family name that they were able to trace back to a town that now is in Transylvania, which we know was occupied by Hungarians.  This is the only town that has their name since the first recording except for a small family in Italy that also has the same very unique last name.  Of course they were found via facebook and claim to have no relatives in Hungary and also their last name dates back to the first recording of it in their city. 
Pure coincidence or maybe....
Just had to throw it out there to you specialists!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbug80 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan Language 

message: Please look at the map.  Rome was founded by the "Ramnes, Luceres, and Tites".  Ramnes = Romans.  Luceres = Ligurians (nearby).  And Tites seems to be cognate with Celto-Germanic *Tuatha, *Theod, *Diot meaning tribes, cf. Deut-schland, Pennsylvania DUT-CH.  CURIAE is cognate with GREEK *KURIOUS = Lord.  And could *LAUTNI = Freedman in Etruscan be the root of LATIN?  That is, could the Latins who overthrew Etruscan overlordship have been FREEDMEN who rebelled against their former masters?  That *Etera = (foreign) bondsmen seems strange... doesn't it resemble ETRUscan?  
Also, could *LUCAIR meaning ruler really come from *RUCAIR, cognate with IE *Rex?  L <-> R in many tongues.  Furthermore, could LICTOR come from Etruscan LUCAIR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs).
:I will just give a brief answer to this one. Basically the connections you make here are unsubstantiated and have no evidence; in short, they are a fantasy, like the many Atlantis fantasies. Anyone can fantasize on anything. You can really get quite wrapped up in your fantasies and think you have discovered new worlds and vistas. I did it when I was young and probably so did most others. To be honest with you, that is why you go to graduate school and train with professionals. They teach (or should teach) you not to do that, not that they are trying to quell original research or extinguish inspiration, but if any assertions have any hope of being true, they need evidence of some sort. The study of ancient history is a kind of myth-making process itself. The most remarkable characters run around its stage. That is the "historicity problem." Historicity is a constant battle with the rampant imagination in which we seem to delight.Dave 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, as it stands the paragraph on origins of the Etruscan civilization is poorly written.  "Lost in prehistory" is a pretty strong term for a place that consistent archaeological layers dating back to about 1700BC (the Terramare culture- named by archaeologists, no one knows what they called themselves) which itself is clearly an offshoot of the famous Hallstatt culture.  The transitional phases along the way from Terramare to Etruscan do not in any way imply that different people suddenly arrived in the area, but instead, that new technologies came in and swept over them, transforming the way of life of the original people.  So, I'd say that most prehistorians agree that the Etruscans are descendants of the Hallstatt cultures north of the Alps who were expanding southward throughout the Neolithic, but whose hold on Italy was tenuous until bronze working came in.  That hardly makes the Etruscan past "lost".  Some historian somewhere said that because they didn't know their prehistory, but the notion that the Etruscans have nothing known of them until 850BCE is an error. Many scholars see regional similarities for that period (1700BCD to 850BCD and it's a fascinating story.  The Etruscans, unlike the Hallstatt culture, had a great piece of seaside landscape, which enabled them to adopt new technologies and ideas from both the seafaring peoples (and there were many) and their relatives to the North.  Judging from what is known about mythic motifs and pottery, they were never completely out of touch with their northern ancestors.--LeValley 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have said that I was using the Hallstatt term to refer to the region where the Hallstatt culture is, and to the preceding cultures, each of which have been given their own names in a somewhat confusing (and controversial) tendency within archaeology to try and label layers and denote major cultural changes - usually in pottery styles and techology, rarely with reference to how people looked or even acted.  The Hallstatt region was not well populated until the Neolithic, which is very interesting.  It did have a very active fishing/bird netting culture from about 28,000 onward, but it emptied out during really cold times, so that most sites are abandoned for hundreds or thousands of years - that's always a good reason to name the newcomers something different.  But more and more, it seems that many of the newcomers had some ancestral connection to places - they moved away in bad weather, but the same people often came back again - judging by mtDNA analysis, anyway.  And, they often either brought new people with them, or new people followed them.  It may be difficult to know, ever.  But the Etruscans do have connections to Old Europe and there are several lines of evidence for this.LeValley 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Ramnes (from Rasenna) were the Etruscans, Luceres (from "lucus"=forest) were the Latins and Tities were the Sabins (Titus, Titius, Tatius were sabin names). I think this is the Dumézil theory (Vocabulary of Indoeuropean Institutions), today widely accepted. Lele giannoni (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding

message: Their linguistic says so. Tursca or Tursci means Turk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.137.20 (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Etruscan people are descendant of proto Turks

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

message: Rasna and similar things should redirect to this. --199.197.113.86 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasna 

message: Since Romans called Etruscan "creators the Tusci or Etrusci." (as cited on Etruscan civilization Wikipedia entry, second sentence), and a variety of hypotheses exist on what Etrusci means, I would like to add my hypothesis. Again, I am using Gaelic as my language source for interpretation. 
Etrusci could be derived from Gaelic words/syllables as follows:
E: similar to Iu= prefix derived from Iudhach (jew), as used in Iupater (Jupiter...IU-jew, pater-father (note pater is not father in Gaelic, rather pater is the latin word for father.))
Trus: 1) similar to túr, meaning tower...possibly paired with as or is
      2) or similar to turas, meaning journey, trip, time, occasion
      3) or similar to treas, meaning third
Tus: if the Roman use of Tusci is more correct than Etrusci, then it is possible Tus denotes the word tús (start, beginning, origin)
Ci: similar to ceann=word/prefix, ceann meaning is: head, end, top. When used before words, it means chief, clan, head...) examples of use before words: ceann-cinnidh (clan chief); ceann-bhaile (capital city); ceannard (head, chief, leader, commander); 
Therefore it could mean: 
1) Jewish Tower clan (Iu+túr+(as/is)+ceann=Iutúr(as/is)ceann)
2) Jewish Traveling clan (Iu+turas+ceann=Iuturasceann)
3) Jewish Third clan (Iu+treas+ceann=Iutreasceann)
4) Jewish Origin clan (Iu+tus+ceann=Iutusceann)
Of these, Jewish Tower clan speaks to their building capabilities. Jewish traveling clan would explain why there existed an Etruscan Sea. Jewish third clan, might denote one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jewish Origin clan might mean clan originating from (descended from)Jewish people.
I have used Essential Gaelic Dictionary (by Boyd Robertson and Ian MacDonald) for my translations to create these possibilities for alternate meanings of Etruscan.
Ladyofthelands (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggestion for meaning of Etruscan 

message: I don't know how to edit, but on the right side, the following PEOPLE are listed in the political structure bar. They are not a political structure, they are people - people believed to be leaders of three of the 12 founding cities. 
Luchume
 - 	Unknown	Tyrrhenus
 - 	Unknown	Tarchon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.205.236 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove - not controversial  

message: Shouldn't this book be refrenced somewhere? It seems pretty important, and directly relates to them. 134.71.132.140 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's described at Etruscan_language. --Wetman 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan Book 

message: Hello i am corsican boy.. Corsican people are italian.. They have italian name and italian culture and is not france.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.93.118 (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Corsica belongs to France. Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

text: What you did in the article is pure vandalism. This has nothing to do with people or names or culture. It is about the fact that now Corsica belongs to France. --176.14.180.57 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  france ???