![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
News from yesterdays genetic fraternity appears to have solve the mystrey surrounding the origins of the etruscan civilization. DNA sample taken from people in Tuscii Region, living there for three generation or more, and those from Southern Turkey, suggest they come from the same gene pool. The ramifaction is that the Etruscans where originally from Anatolia (Lydia), now modern day Southern Turkey.
This, also, lends credence to the fact that cattle found in Tuscii is related to species found only in turkey, reported in SCIENTIFIC AMERICA and elsewhere.
Laupw 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's assuming the Tuscii people tested are descendants of the Etruscans. Three generations doesn't seem like much in the big picture. Are people living in Rome descendants of those who lived there 2000 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.255 ( talk) 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The sentence about genectic samples from people in the region of Tuscany matching that of Murlo and Volterra in Turkey is completely inane. Volterra and Murlo are in Tuscany not in Turkey. Perhaps people from Murlo and Volterra were sampled and found to have genetic commonality with people from Turkey. Another thing that is very misleading is this discussion of whether they were from Anatolia or Turkey. Anaotlia is in Turkey so this is still fairly meaningless. Overall it seems that the genetics reinforce the history, archaeology and linguistic evidence that the people of Rasenna (Etruscans) were related to the Trojans, Lydians, the Island of Lemnos and the Phoenicians. Reference Tyre ancient Phoenician port which founded colonies in North Africa which were ruled by a King Tyr who was routed from North Africa and fled with his people to the Tyrhennian coast which was already populated by the people of Rasenna. Lydia is the southwestern coast of Turkey including Mount Olympus (no its not in Greece). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.248.67 ( talk) 05:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we might change references to Etruscan mythology to religion. What we now call mythology was a complex system of beliefs, more than a mere collection of superstitions and symbols, which may be better categorized as religion. Opinions welcome--- CassiasMunch ( talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Re the queried material relating to "Varrio" - I suspect that's Varro, but only on a mere hunch. The article history shows that the section heading and most of its content were added in this uncited edit.
The editor started a new article on "Etruscan Literature", which was deleted because it had no references; content was essentially the same as we see here, translated by the editor from a corresponding article on Spanish (or perhaps the Basque) Wikipedia. Some edits since have improved the grammar and spelling, but no cite has been added. Nothing particularly contentious in what's written but it might be easier to delete and start afresh. Haploidavey ( talk) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the following to the Article under Religion from Der Mythos by Alfred Rosenberg. There is no reason to leave this out. Maybe someone can correct the format for me as it seemed to have malfunctioned.
"Attempts were made quite early to interpret Etruscan inscriptions on graves, mummy wrappings, and papyrus rolls, but not until Albert Grünwedel was the script successfully deciphered, and the results show the Etruscans in a hideous light. Even the Greek solar myth that the sun dies and is then reborn as a god out of the dark night and with redoubled potency, was appropriated as an Etruscan motif. But in the hands of the Etruscan priests this becomes Asiatic magic, witchcraft linked with pederasty, masturbation, the murder of boys, magical appropriation of the manna of the slaughtered by the priestly murderer, and prophecies derived from the excrement and the piled up entrails of the victims. The virile sun impregnates itself with the magical phallus on the solar disc (the Egyptian point in the sun) which finally penetrates it. From this is born a golden boy, the foetus of a boy with a magical orifice. This is the so called seal of eternity. The violence of the magical phallus is imagined as a bull which copulates with such frenzied force that the disc rolls and the phallus bearer of the horn turns to fire, the phallus of him who possesses the heavens. In endlessly repeated obscenities, the original myth is degraded into repulsive homosexual love. This is to be seen on the wall paintings of graves, as in the Golini tomb where the dead man holds a banquet with his boy lover in the next world, and where two gigantic phalluses spring up from a sacrificial fire as a result of magical satanic rite. According to the inscription, this, the lightning of perfection, is thus perfected. Translated from the jargon of magic, that means that the creature born of woman is deified after putrefying, and becomes a phallus. From the inscription of the Cippus of Perugia, there is recorded a convocation of satanic priests who perfect a spectral manifestation so as to burn in demonic frenzy. He who has this boy has the demonic knife. Eternal is the fire of the boy ..... a magus of the perfected seal. The murdered boy now becomes a little goat. Thunder personified is a metamorphosis of the son gained by violation—the perfected little goat. Here is to be found the origin of the horned apparition and the goat headed devil, whose appearance in the literature of witchcraft was hitherto an unsolved riddle. Its antique types are the Minotaur, especially the one over the well known grave of Corneto, the Tomba dei Tori, and the Greek Satyr. He clearly illustrates a crime crying out to heaven, comments Grünwedel. The meaning of these constantly repeated customs of the Etruscan religion is to be seen in the fate of the shamefully abused boy prostitute who is slit open to symbolise the birth of the diurnal sun from the egg that his apparition has developed when fertilised by the semen collected in bowls."
"The Etruscans generally dwelt with sadistic pleasure over every possible representation of torture, murder and sacrifice. The slaughter of human beings was especially delightful for them. Musically untalented, lacking any poetic gifts, incapable of producing an organic architecture of their own, and without even the rudiments of philosophy, this near eastern people devoted itself to the study of birds’ entrails, and to complex magical and sacrificial rites. Not without some technical ability, it was almost wholly dedicated to commerce, and because it was tenacious, it poisoned Roman blood and transmitted its obsession with hellish torments in the world to come to the churches..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.176 ( talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
But how is it not a reliable source when we even have a page on the man who wrote it (Albert Grünwedel)?? Are you saying he is not the author of the work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.135 ( talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think 'powerful and wealthy' should be removed from the introduction. Nationalists and regionalists always want to have a rich and powerful history, and every historian studying a civilisation thinks the civilisation he is studying is pretty special. But compared to other civilisations at the time this one is not special in any way except being relatively rich in the region at the time. Other civilisations at the time like the Greek, Celts, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Olmecs, Carthagians controlled much bigger parts of the world, Alexander conquered half the world shortly after and the Roman Empire half of Europe. This was a smallish civilisation that even at it's hey-day just controlled a portion of northern and middle Italy. Sure it was relatively rich because of trade and mining, so objectively you can put 'relatively rich' in the introduction, but is that something we want?
Can't we describe these civilisations in neutral terms without resorting to these unnecessary claims of grandeur? Wikipedia is meant to describe reality anyway, not to add these kind of value-assertions. It doesn't add anything and in this case is surrounded with too many doubts. It's too much a question of opinion to be listed so prominently in the introduction. If it is interesting to make these kind of arguments (i don't think so) you could add a paragraph somewhere in the article with arguments in favour or against. -- 83.128.131.207 ( talk) 11:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
A mtDNA study in 2004 stated that the Etruscans had no significant heterogeneity, and that all mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscan samples appear typically European or West Asian, but only a few haplotypes were shared with modern populations. Allele sharing between the Etruscans and modern populations is highest among Germans (seven haplotypes in common), the Cornish (five haplotypes in common), the Turks (four haplotypes in common), and the Tuscans (two haplotypes in common).
this seems to directly contradict the linguistics, germans are indo europeans while etruscans are not, the europeans are the one who moved form steppe to europe, this is what aryan theory states, so etruscans are not europeans or native europeans like native americans who were overrun by indo europeans/ anglo saxons. This tells me that linguistics and DNA is actually trying to make confirmation bias here, suggesting that both etruscans and indo europeans are europeans which should not be the case according to aryan migration theory because their language in not indo european. either etruscans are the europeans or the indo europeans, both cannot be europeans at the same time and speak indo european and non indo european languages.
my position is, all indo european theories and their relations with genetics are BS, connecting linguistics with DNA is a load of crap.
the eurocentric scholars declare that ancient egyptians are not related to present egyptians and declare them migrating from west asia whereas etruscans are being declared europeans, what sort or bias is that, on one hand we have definite proof of egyptian language as language isolate of afro asiatic being declared west asian which was dominated by semitic languages whereas on the other hand we have non indo europeans speakers being declared europeans. If etruscans are really europeans and share genetics with the germans then aryan migration theory really need to rebute against it because it seems to demolish indo european genetics. Anatolians who also seem to be originally indo european seem to share more genetics with the middle east J haplogroup than the indo europeans, this also seem to debunk indo european genetics. 202.188.53.210 ( talk) 01:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I have tried and failed many times to battle with specious references by nationalist Armenian "academics", and this appears to be another case. First, they would have the pages of Wikipedia make claims of some direct descendence of the modern Armenian people from the ancient Urartuians, and now they connect Urartu to the Etruscans? This reference, by the very nature of its claim, is unreliable and should therefore be removed, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.55.3 ( talk) 08:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
They are reliable, at least, by the genetic studies clarrifying no admixture of armenians since Bronze Age and supported by the up to 10 % armenian incursion in tuscans. Turks affinity with Tuscan also supports it since that there is no doubt that nowadays turks are ex-armenian population. Asatrian ( talk) 22:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph that makes a comparison between Iron age population and modern populations in the frequency of snps related to light skin pigmentation and blue eye color is completely inaccurate and it's based on a personal interpretation of who made the edits. The Stanford 2019 study shows in the supp info only a graphic figure with the allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance (the alleles examined are 8), without drawing any conclusions and making no comparison between ancient and modern populations. Nowhere the study states that "Iron Age population had a much lower frequencies of SNPs associated with both light skin and eye pigmentation compared to modern Italians, who instead are similar to other modern Europeans (British, Finnish and Spanish), althoug the authours are cautious about these results". Furthmore, there is no sample of modern Italians in this specific analysis (there are samples called "Medieval & Early Modern" ranging from 700 CE-1800 CE), and present-day populations are represented by some samples of Finns, British and Spanish, who also get different results (Spanish have less SNPs associated with light eye than Finnish and British). Among the examined alleles, there are three that regulate the skin pigmentation, and two out of three are connected with the light skin pigmentation, the third is connected with the ability to tan. The first snps connected with light skin pigmentation has its peak in the Iron Age population, and the second in the present-day populations (specifically in British and Finnish). Hence it is really a stretch the whole paragraph, which is good to remember: it isn't written anywhere in the study. -- Tursclan ( talk) 00:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The fact the authours don't comment those results, doesn't make them false. The cline is clear: Iron Age populations had much less of those light skin/eyes SNPs compared to the modern population, who instead resemble other Europeans. You can cry all the day, it won't change the reality of facts. LambdofGod ( talk) 14:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Curiously the extant article does not mention the Etruscans cultivating Lambrusco red grapes and making wine from same. Insofar as ancient wine-making goes, the Etruscans are one of the ancient civilizations that developed grape vines and artificially selected for a specific wine taste. That should perhaps be mentioned and referenced with citations in the extant article. Seems rather significant since Lambrusco grapes were handed down to the Romans and are still being used today in wine making. SoftwareThing ( talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a technicality, but it was the Roman Republic that conquered the Etruscans. The Roman Empire didn't officially form until well after all of Italy was conquered. I understand that the term "empire" can be applied loosely, but when talking about states, the Roman Republic and Roman Empire were two different things. Saying that the Etruscans were succeeded by the Roman Empire is like saying the Margavate of Brandenburg was succeeded by the German Empire. Yes, the land was eventually under the German Empire, but it was under the Kingdom of Prussia first before they formed the German Empire. Pz Kmpf VI Ausf B ( talk) 05:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
a non-Indo-European population, [1] I'm just added that. Add or I'm report you. HistoriaTurce ( talk) 09:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
a non-Indo-European population, [2] I'm just added that. Why u don't accept this? Added this or I'm reported you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriaTurce ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No, seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by RusherLeBFDIFan ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The history of the Etruscans seems to stop with them founding Rome. Surely there should be something about their struggles with a rising Rome, and their eventual conquest by Rome? The 1911 Britannica has this incredibly brief coverage which I suppose would be better than nothing: "After the expulsion of the Tarquins the chief events in Etruscan history are the vain attempt to re-establish themselves in Rome under Lars Porsena of Clusium, the defeat of Octavius Mamilius, son-in-law of Tarquinius Superbus, at Lake Regillus, and the treaty with Carthage. This last event shows that the Etruscan power was formidable, and that by means of their fleet the Etruscans held under their exclusive control the commerce of the Tyrrhenian Sea. By this treaty Corsica was assigned to the Etruscans while Carthage obtained Sardinia. Soon after this, decay set in. In 474 the Etruscan fleet was destroyed by Hiero I. (q.v.) of Syracuse; Etruria Circumpadana was occupied by the Gauls, the Campanian cities by the Samnites, who took Capua (see CAMPANIA) in 423, and in 396, after a ten years' siege, Veii fell to the Romans. The battle of the Vadimonian Lake (309) finally extinguished Etruscan independence, though for nearly two centuries still the prosperity of the Etruscan cities far exceeded that of Rome itself. Henceforward Etruria is finally merged in the Roman state." David Bofinger ( talk) 02:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
When looking at the sources linked, I found that each of the links worked and the information was correctly cited with footnotes. The sources linked supported the article and brought me to other articles that described the topic in question in an effective way. TitianGecko9602 ( talk) 02:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Upon scanning the outline and cursory CTRL+Fing, there appears to be absolutely nothing on Etruscan fashion, its preservation in the archeological and historical record, and its known influence on the Romans and others. Inter alia, they apparently had the first fad for ridiculously pointed shoes that broke out again with such force in the early Renaissance.
For people with JSTOR access (not a small number for people reading up on the Etruscans and writing with such good sourcing so far, right?) this article seems like it could serve as a very good overview for a general article like this, until there's enough content to deserve a split. — LlywelynII 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
News from yesterdays genetic fraternity appears to have solve the mystrey surrounding the origins of the etruscan civilization. DNA sample taken from people in Tuscii Region, living there for three generation or more, and those from Southern Turkey, suggest they come from the same gene pool. The ramifaction is that the Etruscans where originally from Anatolia (Lydia), now modern day Southern Turkey.
This, also, lends credence to the fact that cattle found in Tuscii is related to species found only in turkey, reported in SCIENTIFIC AMERICA and elsewhere.
Laupw 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's assuming the Tuscii people tested are descendants of the Etruscans. Three generations doesn't seem like much in the big picture. Are people living in Rome descendants of those who lived there 2000 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.255 ( talk) 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The sentence about genectic samples from people in the region of Tuscany matching that of Murlo and Volterra in Turkey is completely inane. Volterra and Murlo are in Tuscany not in Turkey. Perhaps people from Murlo and Volterra were sampled and found to have genetic commonality with people from Turkey. Another thing that is very misleading is this discussion of whether they were from Anatolia or Turkey. Anaotlia is in Turkey so this is still fairly meaningless. Overall it seems that the genetics reinforce the history, archaeology and linguistic evidence that the people of Rasenna (Etruscans) were related to the Trojans, Lydians, the Island of Lemnos and the Phoenicians. Reference Tyre ancient Phoenician port which founded colonies in North Africa which were ruled by a King Tyr who was routed from North Africa and fled with his people to the Tyrhennian coast which was already populated by the people of Rasenna. Lydia is the southwestern coast of Turkey including Mount Olympus (no its not in Greece). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.248.67 ( talk) 05:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we might change references to Etruscan mythology to religion. What we now call mythology was a complex system of beliefs, more than a mere collection of superstitions and symbols, which may be better categorized as religion. Opinions welcome--- CassiasMunch ( talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Re the queried material relating to "Varrio" - I suspect that's Varro, but only on a mere hunch. The article history shows that the section heading and most of its content were added in this uncited edit.
The editor started a new article on "Etruscan Literature", which was deleted because it had no references; content was essentially the same as we see here, translated by the editor from a corresponding article on Spanish (or perhaps the Basque) Wikipedia. Some edits since have improved the grammar and spelling, but no cite has been added. Nothing particularly contentious in what's written but it might be easier to delete and start afresh. Haploidavey ( talk) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the following to the Article under Religion from Der Mythos by Alfred Rosenberg. There is no reason to leave this out. Maybe someone can correct the format for me as it seemed to have malfunctioned.
"Attempts were made quite early to interpret Etruscan inscriptions on graves, mummy wrappings, and papyrus rolls, but not until Albert Grünwedel was the script successfully deciphered, and the results show the Etruscans in a hideous light. Even the Greek solar myth that the sun dies and is then reborn as a god out of the dark night and with redoubled potency, was appropriated as an Etruscan motif. But in the hands of the Etruscan priests this becomes Asiatic magic, witchcraft linked with pederasty, masturbation, the murder of boys, magical appropriation of the manna of the slaughtered by the priestly murderer, and prophecies derived from the excrement and the piled up entrails of the victims. The virile sun impregnates itself with the magical phallus on the solar disc (the Egyptian point in the sun) which finally penetrates it. From this is born a golden boy, the foetus of a boy with a magical orifice. This is the so called seal of eternity. The violence of the magical phallus is imagined as a bull which copulates with such frenzied force that the disc rolls and the phallus bearer of the horn turns to fire, the phallus of him who possesses the heavens. In endlessly repeated obscenities, the original myth is degraded into repulsive homosexual love. This is to be seen on the wall paintings of graves, as in the Golini tomb where the dead man holds a banquet with his boy lover in the next world, and where two gigantic phalluses spring up from a sacrificial fire as a result of magical satanic rite. According to the inscription, this, the lightning of perfection, is thus perfected. Translated from the jargon of magic, that means that the creature born of woman is deified after putrefying, and becomes a phallus. From the inscription of the Cippus of Perugia, there is recorded a convocation of satanic priests who perfect a spectral manifestation so as to burn in demonic frenzy. He who has this boy has the demonic knife. Eternal is the fire of the boy ..... a magus of the perfected seal. The murdered boy now becomes a little goat. Thunder personified is a metamorphosis of the son gained by violation—the perfected little goat. Here is to be found the origin of the horned apparition and the goat headed devil, whose appearance in the literature of witchcraft was hitherto an unsolved riddle. Its antique types are the Minotaur, especially the one over the well known grave of Corneto, the Tomba dei Tori, and the Greek Satyr. He clearly illustrates a crime crying out to heaven, comments Grünwedel. The meaning of these constantly repeated customs of the Etruscan religion is to be seen in the fate of the shamefully abused boy prostitute who is slit open to symbolise the birth of the diurnal sun from the egg that his apparition has developed when fertilised by the semen collected in bowls."
"The Etruscans generally dwelt with sadistic pleasure over every possible representation of torture, murder and sacrifice. The slaughter of human beings was especially delightful for them. Musically untalented, lacking any poetic gifts, incapable of producing an organic architecture of their own, and without even the rudiments of philosophy, this near eastern people devoted itself to the study of birds’ entrails, and to complex magical and sacrificial rites. Not without some technical ability, it was almost wholly dedicated to commerce, and because it was tenacious, it poisoned Roman blood and transmitted its obsession with hellish torments in the world to come to the churches..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.176 ( talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
But how is it not a reliable source when we even have a page on the man who wrote it (Albert Grünwedel)?? Are you saying he is not the author of the work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.135 ( talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think 'powerful and wealthy' should be removed from the introduction. Nationalists and regionalists always want to have a rich and powerful history, and every historian studying a civilisation thinks the civilisation he is studying is pretty special. But compared to other civilisations at the time this one is not special in any way except being relatively rich in the region at the time. Other civilisations at the time like the Greek, Celts, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Olmecs, Carthagians controlled much bigger parts of the world, Alexander conquered half the world shortly after and the Roman Empire half of Europe. This was a smallish civilisation that even at it's hey-day just controlled a portion of northern and middle Italy. Sure it was relatively rich because of trade and mining, so objectively you can put 'relatively rich' in the introduction, but is that something we want?
Can't we describe these civilisations in neutral terms without resorting to these unnecessary claims of grandeur? Wikipedia is meant to describe reality anyway, not to add these kind of value-assertions. It doesn't add anything and in this case is surrounded with too many doubts. It's too much a question of opinion to be listed so prominently in the introduction. If it is interesting to make these kind of arguments (i don't think so) you could add a paragraph somewhere in the article with arguments in favour or against. -- 83.128.131.207 ( talk) 11:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
A mtDNA study in 2004 stated that the Etruscans had no significant heterogeneity, and that all mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscan samples appear typically European or West Asian, but only a few haplotypes were shared with modern populations. Allele sharing between the Etruscans and modern populations is highest among Germans (seven haplotypes in common), the Cornish (five haplotypes in common), the Turks (four haplotypes in common), and the Tuscans (two haplotypes in common).
this seems to directly contradict the linguistics, germans are indo europeans while etruscans are not, the europeans are the one who moved form steppe to europe, this is what aryan theory states, so etruscans are not europeans or native europeans like native americans who were overrun by indo europeans/ anglo saxons. This tells me that linguistics and DNA is actually trying to make confirmation bias here, suggesting that both etruscans and indo europeans are europeans which should not be the case according to aryan migration theory because their language in not indo european. either etruscans are the europeans or the indo europeans, both cannot be europeans at the same time and speak indo european and non indo european languages.
my position is, all indo european theories and their relations with genetics are BS, connecting linguistics with DNA is a load of crap.
the eurocentric scholars declare that ancient egyptians are not related to present egyptians and declare them migrating from west asia whereas etruscans are being declared europeans, what sort or bias is that, on one hand we have definite proof of egyptian language as language isolate of afro asiatic being declared west asian which was dominated by semitic languages whereas on the other hand we have non indo europeans speakers being declared europeans. If etruscans are really europeans and share genetics with the germans then aryan migration theory really need to rebute against it because it seems to demolish indo european genetics. Anatolians who also seem to be originally indo european seem to share more genetics with the middle east J haplogroup than the indo europeans, this also seem to debunk indo european genetics. 202.188.53.210 ( talk) 01:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I have tried and failed many times to battle with specious references by nationalist Armenian "academics", and this appears to be another case. First, they would have the pages of Wikipedia make claims of some direct descendence of the modern Armenian people from the ancient Urartuians, and now they connect Urartu to the Etruscans? This reference, by the very nature of its claim, is unreliable and should therefore be removed, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.55.3 ( talk) 08:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
They are reliable, at least, by the genetic studies clarrifying no admixture of armenians since Bronze Age and supported by the up to 10 % armenian incursion in tuscans. Turks affinity with Tuscan also supports it since that there is no doubt that nowadays turks are ex-armenian population. Asatrian ( talk) 22:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph that makes a comparison between Iron age population and modern populations in the frequency of snps related to light skin pigmentation and blue eye color is completely inaccurate and it's based on a personal interpretation of who made the edits. The Stanford 2019 study shows in the supp info only a graphic figure with the allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance (the alleles examined are 8), without drawing any conclusions and making no comparison between ancient and modern populations. Nowhere the study states that "Iron Age population had a much lower frequencies of SNPs associated with both light skin and eye pigmentation compared to modern Italians, who instead are similar to other modern Europeans (British, Finnish and Spanish), althoug the authours are cautious about these results". Furthmore, there is no sample of modern Italians in this specific analysis (there are samples called "Medieval & Early Modern" ranging from 700 CE-1800 CE), and present-day populations are represented by some samples of Finns, British and Spanish, who also get different results (Spanish have less SNPs associated with light eye than Finnish and British). Among the examined alleles, there are three that regulate the skin pigmentation, and two out of three are connected with the light skin pigmentation, the third is connected with the ability to tan. The first snps connected with light skin pigmentation has its peak in the Iron Age population, and the second in the present-day populations (specifically in British and Finnish). Hence it is really a stretch the whole paragraph, which is good to remember: it isn't written anywhere in the study. -- Tursclan ( talk) 00:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The fact the authours don't comment those results, doesn't make them false. The cline is clear: Iron Age populations had much less of those light skin/eyes SNPs compared to the modern population, who instead resemble other Europeans. You can cry all the day, it won't change the reality of facts. LambdofGod ( talk) 14:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Curiously the extant article does not mention the Etruscans cultivating Lambrusco red grapes and making wine from same. Insofar as ancient wine-making goes, the Etruscans are one of the ancient civilizations that developed grape vines and artificially selected for a specific wine taste. That should perhaps be mentioned and referenced with citations in the extant article. Seems rather significant since Lambrusco grapes were handed down to the Romans and are still being used today in wine making. SoftwareThing ( talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a technicality, but it was the Roman Republic that conquered the Etruscans. The Roman Empire didn't officially form until well after all of Italy was conquered. I understand that the term "empire" can be applied loosely, but when talking about states, the Roman Republic and Roman Empire were two different things. Saying that the Etruscans were succeeded by the Roman Empire is like saying the Margavate of Brandenburg was succeeded by the German Empire. Yes, the land was eventually under the German Empire, but it was under the Kingdom of Prussia first before they formed the German Empire. Pz Kmpf VI Ausf B ( talk) 05:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
a non-Indo-European population, [1] I'm just added that. Add or I'm report you. HistoriaTurce ( talk) 09:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
a non-Indo-European population, [2] I'm just added that. Why u don't accept this? Added this or I'm reported you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriaTurce ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No, seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by RusherLeBFDIFan ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The history of the Etruscans seems to stop with them founding Rome. Surely there should be something about their struggles with a rising Rome, and their eventual conquest by Rome? The 1911 Britannica has this incredibly brief coverage which I suppose would be better than nothing: "After the expulsion of the Tarquins the chief events in Etruscan history are the vain attempt to re-establish themselves in Rome under Lars Porsena of Clusium, the defeat of Octavius Mamilius, son-in-law of Tarquinius Superbus, at Lake Regillus, and the treaty with Carthage. This last event shows that the Etruscan power was formidable, and that by means of their fleet the Etruscans held under their exclusive control the commerce of the Tyrrhenian Sea. By this treaty Corsica was assigned to the Etruscans while Carthage obtained Sardinia. Soon after this, decay set in. In 474 the Etruscan fleet was destroyed by Hiero I. (q.v.) of Syracuse; Etruria Circumpadana was occupied by the Gauls, the Campanian cities by the Samnites, who took Capua (see CAMPANIA) in 423, and in 396, after a ten years' siege, Veii fell to the Romans. The battle of the Vadimonian Lake (309) finally extinguished Etruscan independence, though for nearly two centuries still the prosperity of the Etruscan cities far exceeded that of Rome itself. Henceforward Etruria is finally merged in the Roman state." David Bofinger ( talk) 02:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
When looking at the sources linked, I found that each of the links worked and the information was correctly cited with footnotes. The sources linked supported the article and brought me to other articles that described the topic in question in an effective way. TitianGecko9602 ( talk) 02:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Upon scanning the outline and cursory CTRL+Fing, there appears to be absolutely nothing on Etruscan fashion, its preservation in the archeological and historical record, and its known influence on the Romans and others. Inter alia, they apparently had the first fad for ridiculously pointed shoes that broke out again with such force in the early Renaissance.
For people with JSTOR access (not a small number for people reading up on the Etruscans and writing with such good sourcing so far, right?) this article seems like it could serve as a very good overview for a general article like this, until there's enough content to deserve a split. — LlywelynII 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)